首页> 外文期刊>JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association >Imaging response in the primary index lesion and clinical outcomes following transarterial locoregional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.
【24h】

Imaging response in the primary index lesion and clinical outcomes following transarterial locoregional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.

机译:肝细胞癌经动脉局部区域治疗后主要指标病变的影像反应和临床结局。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

CONTEXT: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) (unidimensional), World Health Organization (WHO) (bidimensional), and European Association for Study of the Liver (EASL) (necrosis) guidelines are commonly used to assess response following therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). No universally accepted standard exists. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate intermethod agreement between these 3 imaging guidelines and to introduce the concept of the "primary index lesion" as a biomarker for response. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Single-center comprehensive imaging analysis including 245 consecutive patients with HCC who were treated with chemoembolization or radioembolization between January 2000 and December 2008. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans (N = 1065) were reviewed to assess response in the "primary index lesion," defined as the largest tumor targeted during first treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intermethod agreement (kappa statistics) between RECIST, WHO, and EASL guidelines response; correlation of WHO and EASL response in the primary index lesion with time to progression and survival. RESULTS: Kappa coefficients were 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.92) between the WHO and RECIST guidelines, 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16-0.33) between RECIST and EASL, and 0.28 (95% CI, 0.19-0.36) between WHO and EASL. Disease progressed in 96 patients; 113 died. The hazard ratio for time to progression in responders compared with nonresponders was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.23-0.57) for WHO, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.24-0.58) for RECIST, and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.22-0.64) for EASL. Hazard ratios for survival in responders compared with nonresponders in univariate and multivariate analyses were 0.46 (95% CI, 0.32-0.67) and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.35-0.84) for WHO and 0.36 (95% CI, 0.22-0.57) and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.34-0.85) for EASL. Hazard ratios for survival in responders vs nonresponders in patients with solitary and multifocal HCC were 0.39 (95% CI, 0.19-0.77) and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.32-0.82) for WHO and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.10-0.67) and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.28-0.79) for EASL. CONCLUSIONS: Among a group of patients with HCC, agreement for classification of therapeutic response was high between the RECIST and WHO guidelines but low between each of these and EASL. Application of these methods to measure response in a primary index lesion resulted in statistically significant correlations with disease progression and survival.
机译:背景:实体瘤反应评估标准(RECIST)(一维),世界卫生组织(WHO)(二维)和欧洲肝病研究协会(EASL)(坏死)指南通常用于评估肝细胞治疗后的反应癌(HCC)。没有普遍接受的标准。目的:评估这三种影像学指南之间的方法间一致性,并引入“原发性病变”作为反应的生物标记物的概念。设计,地点和参与者:2000年1月至2008年12月间接受化学栓塞或放射栓塞治疗的245例连续HCC患者的单中心综合影像学分析。对计算机断层扫描和磁共振成像扫描(N = 1065)进行了评估,以评估疗效在“原发性指数病变”中定义为首次治疗中靶向的最大肿瘤。主要观察指标:RECIST,WHO和EASL指南对策之间的方法间协议(kappa统计);原发性指标病变中WHO和EASL反应与进展和生存时间的相关性。结果:WHO和RECIST准则之间的Kappa系数分别为0.86(95%置信区间[CI],0.80-0.92),RECIST和EASL之间的Kappa系数为0.24(95%CI,0.16-0.33)和0.28(95%CI,0.19- 0.36)在WHO和EASL之间。 96例患者疾病进展; 113人死亡。与未应答者相比,应答者中进展时间的危险比对于WHO为0.36(95%CI,0.23-0.57),对于RECIST为0.38(95%CI,0.24-0.58)和0.38(95%CI,0.22-0.64)用于EASL。在单因素和多因素分析中,响应者生存率与无反应者相比,世卫组织分别为0.46(95%CI,0.32-0.67)和0.55(95%CI,0.35-0.84)和0.36(95%CI,0.22-0.57)和EASL为0.54(95%CI,0.34-0.85)。世卫组织和多灶性肝癌患者在有反应者和无反应者中生存的危险比分别为0.39(95%CI,0.19-0.77)和0.51(95%CI,0.32-0.82)和0.26(95%CI,0.10-0.67) EASL为0.47(95%CI,0.28-0.79)。结论:在一组肝癌患者中,RECIST和WHO指南之间的治疗反应分类协议较高,而每一个与EASL之间的协议均较低。这些方法用于测量原发性指数病变的反应导致与疾病进展和生存在统计学上显着相关。

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