Basic HTML Version
101
Ι. Μοσχούρης & συν.
Απεικονιστικά κριτήρια αξιολόγησης ανταπόκρισης κακοηθών ηπατικών όγκων μετά από περιοχική επεμβατική θεραπεία
magnetic resonance in combination with a system of
response criteria. World Health Organization (WHO)
criteria and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid
Tumors (RECIST) are based on changes in the size of
the entire target tumors. On the contrary, European
Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria
and modified RECIST (mRECIST) criteria are based
only on the size of the viable (i.e enhancing on dynamic
imaging with computed tomography or with magnetic
resonance) component of the target tumors. At least
for the post-interventional evaluation of hepatocel-
lular carcinoma, enhancement-based criteria appear
to be more appropriate than size-based criteria. In the
future, techniques of three-dimensional imaging, and
modalities which depict the hemodynamic behavior,
the molecular structure and the metabolism of target
tumors, might gainwider acceptance andmight comple-
ment or replace the current approaches.
Keywords:
liver tumors, hepatocellular carcinoma, lo-
coregional treatment, interventional treatment, response
Radiology department, General Hospital “Tzanio”,
Piraeus, Greece
ΒΙΒΛΙΟΓΡΑΦΙΑ
1. Schima W, Ba-Ssalamah A, Kurtaran A, et al.Post-treatment imaging
of liver tumours. Cancer Imaging. 2007;7A:28-36.
2. Gervais DA, Kalva S, Thabet A. Percutaneous image-guided therapy
of intra-abdominal malignancy: imaging evaluation of treatment
response. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34:593-609.
3. Crocetti L, Della Pina C, Cioni D, Lencioni R. Peri-intraprocedural
imaging: US, CT, and MRI. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36:648-660.
4. Llovet JM1, Di Bisceglie AM, Bruix J, et al. Panel of Experts inHCC-Design
Clinical Trials. Design and endpoints of clinical trials in hepatocellular
carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:698-711.
5. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, et al Reporting results of cancer
treatment. Cancer 1981; 47: 207-214
6. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate
the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for
Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the
United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer
Inst 2000; 92:205-216.
7. Yaghmai V, Miller FH, Rezai P, Benson AB 3rd, Salem R. Response to
treatment series: part 2, tumor response assessment--using new and
conventional criteria. AJR 2011;197:18-27.
8. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation
criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur
J Cancer. 2009;45:228-247.
9. Husband JE, Schwartz LH, Spencer J, et al. International Cancer Imaging
Society. Evaluation of the response to treatment of solid tumours - a
consensus statement of the International Cancer Imaging Society. Br
J Cancer. 2004;90:2256-60.
10. Keil S, Plumhans C, Behrendt FF, et al. Semi-automated quantifica-
tion of hepatic lesions in a phantom. Invest Radiol. 2009;44:82-88.
11. Ebied OM, Federle MP, Carr BI, et al. Evaluation of responses to
chemoembolization in patients with unresectable hepatocellular
carcinoma. Cancer. 2003; 97:1042-1050.
12. Ikeya S, Takayasu K, Muramatsu Y, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy
of oil chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma by computed
tomography:a proposal for altering the criteria to indicate the efficacy.
Jpn J Cancer Clin 1990; 36:985–992
13. Takayasu K, Arii S, Matsuo N, et al Comparison of CT findings with
resected specimens after chemoembolization with iodized oil for
hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR 2000; 175:699-704.
14. De Santis M, Torricelli P, Cristani A,et al MRI. of hepatocellular carci-
noma before and after transcatheter chemoembolization. J Comput
Assist Tomogr. 1993; 17:901-908.
15.Forner A, Ayuso C, Varela M, et al. Evaluation of tumor response after
locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: are response
evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable? Cancer 2009; 115:616-623
16. De Giorgi U, Aliberti C, Benea G, Conti M, Marangolo M. Effect of
angiosonography to monitor response during imatinib treatment in
patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Clin Cancer
Res. 2005; 11:6171-6176.
17. Bruix J, Sherman M, Llovet JM, et al. Clinical management of he-
patocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL
conference. European Association for the Study of the Liver. J
Hepatol. 2001; 35:421-430.
18. Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for
hepatocellular carcinoma.Semin Liver Dis. 2010;30:52-60.
19. Kim CJ1, Kim HJ, Park JH, Park DI, Cho YK, Sohn CI, Jeon WK,
Kim BI, KimMJ. Radiologic response to transcatheter hepatic arterial
chemoembolization and clinical outcomes in patients with hepatocel-
lular carcinoma. Liver Int. 2014;34:305-312.
20. Jung ES1, Kim JH, Yoon EL, et al.Comparison of the methods for tumor
response assessment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergo-
ing transarterial chemoembolization. J Hepatol. 2013;58:1181-1187.
21. Shaheen M1, Hassanain M, Aljiffry M, et al. Predictors of response
to radio-embolization (TheraSphere®) treatment of neuroendocrine
liver metastasis. HPB (Oxford). 2012;14:60-66.
22. Shin SW. The current practice of transarterial chemoembolization
for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Korean J Radiol.
2009;10:425-34.
23. Choi BI, KimHC, Han JK, et al. Therapeutic effect of transcatheter oily
chemoembolization therapy for encapsulated nodular hepatocellular
carcinoma: CT and pathologic findings. Radiology. 1992; 182:709-713.
24. Takayasu K, Arii S, Matsuo N, et al. Comparison of CT findings with
resected specimens after chemoembolization with iodized oil for he-
patocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175: 699-704.
25. Kamel IR, Bluemke DA. Magnetic resonance imaging of the liver: as-
sessing response to treatment. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;13:
191-200.
26. Moschouris H, Malagari K, Papadaki MG, et al. Short-term evaluation
of liver tumors after transarterial chemoembolization: limitations and
feasibility of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Abdom Imaging.
2011;36:718-728.
27. Ippolito D, Bonaffini PA, Ratti L, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma
treated with transarterial chemoembolization: Dynamic perfusion-CT
in the assessment of residual tumor. World J Gastroenterol. 2010
;16:5993-6000.
28. Zhao JG1, Feng GS, Kong XQ, Li X, Li MH, Cheng YS.Assessment
of hepatocellular carcinoma vascularity before and after transcatheter
arterial chemoembolization by using first pass perfusion weighted MR
imaging. World J Gastroenterol. 2004;10:1152-1156.
29. Moschouris H, Malagari K, Marinis A, et al. Hepatocellular carci-
noma treated with transarterial chemoembolization: Evaluation with
parametric contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. World J Radiol.
2012;4:379-386.
30. Kamel IR, Liapi E, Reyes DK, et al. Unresectable Hepatocellular
Carcinoma: Serial Early Vascular and Cellular Changes after
Transarterial Chemoembolization as Detected with MR Imaging.
Radiology 2009;250:466-473
31. Mannelli L, Kim S, Hajdu CH, et al. Assessment of tumor necrosis of
hepatocellular carcinoma after chemoembolization: diffusion-weighted
and contrast-enhanced MRI with histopathologic correlation of the
explanted liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:1044-1052.
32. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, de Castro Faria S, Tamm EP, Benjamin
RS, Johnson MM, Macapinlac HA, Podoloff DA. CT evaluation of
the response of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after imatinib mesylate
treatment: a quantitative analysis correlated with FDG PET findings.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:1619-1628.
33. Weng Z, Ertle J, Zheng S, et al. Choi criteria are superior in evaluating
tumor response in patients treated with transarterial radioemboliza-
tion for hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncol Lett. 2013;6:1707-1712.
34. Dierckx R, Maes A, Peeters M, et al. FDG PET for monitoring response
to local and locoregional therapy in HCC and liver metastases. Q J
Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 ;53:336-342.