Identifying Staging Markers for Hepatocellular Carcinoma before Transarterial Chemoembolization: Comparison of Three-dimensional Quantitative versus Non-three-dimensional Imaging Markers.

Purpose To test and compare the association between radiologic measurements of lesion diameter, volume, and enhancement on baseline magnetic resonance (MR) images with overall survival and tumor response in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant retrospective, single-institution analysis was approved by the institutional review board, with waiver of informed consent. It included 79 patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with TACE. Baseline arterial phase contrast material-enhanced (CE) MR imaging was used to measure the overall and enhancing tumor diameters. A segmentation-based three-dimensional quantification of the overall and enhancing tumor volumes was performed in each patient. Numeric cutoff values (5 cm for diameters and 65 cm(3) for volumes) were used to stratify the patient cohort in two groups. Tumor response rates according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), modified RECIST (mRECIST), and European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) guidelines were recorded for all groups. Survival was evaluated by using Kaplan-Meier analysis and was compared by using Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) after univariate and multivariate analysis. Results Stratification according to overall and enhancing tumor diameters did not result in a significant separation of survival curves (HR, 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7, 2.5; P = .234; and HR, 1.6; 95% CI: 0.9, 2.8; P = .08, respectively). The stratification according to overall and enhancing tumor volume achieved significance (HR, 1.8; 95% CI: 0.9, 3.4; P = .022; and HR, 1.8; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; P = .017, respectively). As for tumor response, higher response rates were observed in smaller lesions compared with larger lesions, when the 5-cm threshold (27% vs 15% for mRECIST and 45% vs 24% for EASL) was used. Conclusion As opposed to anatomic tumor diameter as the most commonly used staging marker, volumetric assessment of lesion size and enhancement on baseline CE MR images is strongly associated with survival of patients with HCC who were treated with TACE.

[1]  A. Miller,et al.  Reporting results of cancer treatment , 1981, Cancer.

[2]  V. Mazzaferro,et al.  Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  F. Izzo,et al.  A new prognostic system for hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective study of 435 patients , 1998, Hepatology.

[4]  J. Bruix,et al.  Prognosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: The BCLC Staging Classification , 1999, Seminars in liver disease.

[5]  M. van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[6]  J. Geschwind,et al.  Chemoembolization of liver tumor in a rabbit model: assessment of tumor cell death with diffusion-weighted MR imaging and histologic analysis. , 2000, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[7]  L Pagliaro,et al.  Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference. European Association for the Study of the Liver. , 2001, Journal of hepatology.

[8]  S. Love,et al.  Survival Analysis Part III: Multivariate data analysis – choosing a model and assessing its adequacy and fit , 2003, British Journal of Cancer.

[9]  Expanded criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma through down-staging prior to liver transplantation: not yet there. , 2006, Seminars in liver disease.

[10]  M. Abecassis,et al.  Radiologic–Pathologic Correlation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Chemoembolization , 2010, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[11]  Robert Ford,et al.  Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[12]  M. Abecassis,et al.  Radiologic–pathologic correlation of hepatocellular carcinoma treated with internal radiation using yttrium‐90 microspheres , 2009, Hepatology.

[13]  E. Hecht,et al.  Hepatocellular carcinoma: Assessment of response to transarterial chemoembolization with image subtraction , 2010, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[14]  Riccardo Lencioni,et al.  Modified RECIST (mRECIST) Assessment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma , 2010, Seminars in liver disease.

[15]  J. Geschwind,et al.  Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization for Liver Cancer: Is It Time to Distinguish Conventional from Drug-Eluting Chemoembolization? , 2011, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[16]  Eleni Liapi,et al.  Transcatheter intraarterial therapies: rationale and overview. , 2011, Radiology.

[17]  A. Benson,et al.  Role of the EASL, RECIST, and WHO response guidelines alone or in combination for hepatocellular carcinoma: radiologic-pathologic correlation. , 2011, Journal of hepatology.

[18]  Benoit Mory,et al.  Quantitative and volumetric European Association for the Study of the Liver and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors measurements: feasibility of a semiautomated software method to assess tumor response after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. , 2012, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[19]  John M Buatti,et al.  Comparison of response evaluation criteria in solid tumors with volumetric measurements for estimation of tumor burden in pancreatic adenocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma. , 2012, American journal of surgery.

[20]  Myeong-Jin Kim,et al.  Number of Target Lesions for EASL and Modified RECIST to Predict Survivals in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Chemoembolization , 2012, Clinical Cancer Research.

[21]  V. Paradis,et al.  Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the regional characterization of liver tumors. , 2012, Radiology.

[22]  Celia P. Corona-Villalobos,et al.  Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: MR imaging after intraarterial therapy. Part II. Response stratification using volumetric functional criteria after intraarterial therapy. , 2013, Radiology.

[23]  J. Geschwind,et al.  Intraarterial therapies for primary liver cancer: state of the art , 2013, Expert review of anticancer therapy.

[24]  Benoit Mory,et al.  Comparison of semi-automatic volumetric VX2 hepatic tumor segmentation from cone beam CT and multi-detector CT with histology in rabbit models. , 2013, Academic radiology.

[25]  M. Abecassis,et al.  Radiological‐pathological analysis of WHO, RECIST, EASL, mRECIST and DWI: Imaging analysis from a prospective randomized trial of Y90 ± sorafenib , 2013, Hepatology.

[26]  Vahid Yaghmai,et al.  Assessment of liver tumor response to therapy: role of quantitative imaging. , 2013, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[27]  Roberto Ardon,et al.  Semiautomatic volumetric tumor segmentation for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison between C-arm cone beam computed tomography and MRI. , 2013, Academic radiology.

[28]  Celia P. Corona-Villalobos,et al.  Interobserver agreement of semi-automated and manual measurements of functional MRI metrics of treatment response in hepatocellular carcinoma. , 2014, European journal of radiology.

[29]  Toby C. Cornish,et al.  Radiologic-pathologic analysis of contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging in patients with HCC after TACE: diagnostic accuracy of 3D quantitative image analysis. , 2014, Radiology.

[30]  S. Fan,et al.  Development of Hong Kong Liver Cancer staging system with treatment stratification for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. , 2014, Gastroenterology.