首页> 外文期刊>Upsala journal of medical sciences >Tumor response evaluation criteria for HCC (hepatocellular carcinoma) treated using TACE (transcatheter arterial chemoembolization): RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors) version 1.1 and mRECIST (modified RECIST): JIVROSG-0602
【24h】

Tumor response evaluation criteria for HCC (hepatocellular carcinoma) treated using TACE (transcatheter arterial chemoembolization): RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors) version 1.1 and mRECIST (modified RECIST): JIVROSG-0602

机译:使用TACE(经导管动脉化学栓塞)治疗的HCC(肝细胞癌)的肿瘤反应评估标准:RECIST(实体瘤反应评估标准)1.1版和mRECIST(改良的RECIST):JIVROSG-0602

获取原文
           

摘要

Background. Two standard sets of criteria are used to evaluate the tumor response of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) and modified RECIST (mRECIST). The purpose was to compare two tumor response evaluation criteria, RECIST version 1.1 and mRECIST, for HCC treated using transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE). Methods. The radiological findings of patients who underwent TACE for HCCs in a multicenter clinical trial were examined. Sixty-five lesions in 21 patients treated with TACE without mixing iodized-oil were evaluated. The tumor size was evaluated by measuring the entire lesion, including the necrotic part, using RECIST version 1.1, whereas only the contrast-enhanced part observed during the arterial phase was measured using mRECIST. Five radiologists independently measured each lesion twice. To evaluate the inter-criteria reproducibility, the complete response (CR) rate, the response rate, the kappa statistics, and the proportion of agreement (PA) for response categories were calculated. The same analyses were conducted for inter- and intra-observer reproducibility. Results. In the inter-criteria reproducibility study, the CR rate and the response rate obtained using mRECIST (56.9% and 79.7%) were higher than those obtained using RECIST version 1.1 (9.2% and 43.1%). In the inter- and intra-observer reproducibility study, mRECIST exhibited an ‘almost perfect agreement', while RECIST version 1.1 exhibited a ‘substantial agreement'. Conclusions. Considerable differences in the CR rate and the response rate were observed. From the viewpoint of the high inter- and intra-observer reproducibility, mRECIST may be more suitable for tumor response criteria in clinical trials of TACE for HCC.
机译:背景。使用两组标准的标准来评估肝细胞癌(HCC)的肿瘤反应:RECIST(实体瘤反应评估标准)和改良的RECIST(mRECIST)。目的是比较两种经导管动脉化疗栓塞(TACE)治疗的HCC的肿瘤反应评估标准(RECIST 1.1版和mRECIST)。方法。在一项多中心临床试验中,对接受TACE肝癌治疗的患者的影像学检查进行了检查。评估21例接受TACE治疗且未加碘油的患者的65个病变。使用RECIST 1.1版通过测量整个病变(包括坏死部分)来评估肿瘤大小,而使用mRECIST仅测量在动脉期观察到的对比增强部分。五位放射科医生分别对每个病变进行两次测量。为了评估标准间的可重复性,计算了响应类别的完整响应(CR)率,响应率,kappa统计数据和一致性(PA)比例。对观察者之间和观察者之间的可重复性进行了相同的分析。结果。在标准间可重复性研究中,使用mRECIST获得的CR率和响应率(56.9%和79.7%)高于使用RECIST 1.1版获得的CR率和响应率(9.2%和43.1%)。在观察者之间和观察者内部的可重复性研究中,mRECIST表现出“几乎完美的协议”,而RECIST 1.1版表现出“实质性协议”。结论。观察到CR率和响应率存在显着差异。从观察者之间和观察者之间的高可重复性的观点来看,mRECIST可能更适合TACE用于HCC的临床试验中的肿瘤反应标准。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号