1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Quantitative dual-energy CT for evaluating hepatocellular carcinoma after transarterial chemoembolization

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We aimed to investigate the role of the quantitative parameters of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in evaluating patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated by transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). We retrospectively identified 80 HCC patients (mean age, 56 years; 61 men) treated by TACE who received contrast-enhanced DECT and were retreated by TACE within 7 days between November 2018 and December 2019. Taking digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and CT images as reference standard, two readers measured and calculated the values of normalized iodine concentration at arterial phase (NICAP), normalized iodine concentration at portal venous phase (NICPP), iodine concentration difference (ICD), arterial iodine fraction (AIF) and slope of the spectral Hounsfield unit curve (λ Hu) by placing matched regions of interests (ROIs) within the tumor active area (TAA), adjacent normal hepatic parenchyma (ANHP) and tumor necrotic area (TNA). Differences between the parameters were analyzed by the Kruskal–Wallis H test. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of the parameters performance in differentiating the three tissues types was performed. AIF exhibited a good performance in distinguishing TAA (0.93 ± 0.31) and ANHP (0.18 ± 0.14), the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.989, while the λ Hu exhibited an excellent performance in distinguishing TAA (3.32 ± 1.24) and TNA (0.29 ± 0.27), with an AUC of 1.000. In conclusion, quantitative DECT can be effectively used to evaluate the tumor viability in HCC patients treated by TACE.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Hepatocellular carcinoma

            Hepatocellular carcinoma appears frequently in patients with cirrhosis. Surveillance by biannual ultrasound is recommended for such patients because it allows diagnosis at an early stage, when effective therapies are feasible. The best candidates for resection are patients with a solitary tumour and preserved liver function. Liver transplantation benefits patients who are not good candidates for surgical resection, and the best candidates are those within Milan criteria (solitary tumour ≤5 cm or up to three nodules ≤3 cm). Image-guided ablation is the most frequently used therapeutic strategy, but its efficacy is limited by the size of the tumour and its localisation. Chemoembolisation has survival benefit in asymptomatic patients with multifocal disease without vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread. Finally, sorafenib, lenvatinib, which is non-inferior to sorafenib, and regorafenib increase survival and are the standard treatments in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. This Seminar summarises the scientific evidence that supports the current recommendations for clinical practice, and discusses the areas in which more research is needed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma.

              The endpoint in cancer research is overall survival. Nonetheless, other potential surrogate endpoints, such as response rate and time to progression, are currently used. Measurement of response rate in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has become a controversial issue. The World Health Organization (WHO) criteria underestimate the actual response rate; thus, they were amended in 2000 by a panel of experts convened by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) to take into account treatment-induced tumor necrosis. Applying these guidelines, there was an association between response rate and outcome prediction. More recently, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guideline was proposed as a method for measuring treatment response based on tumor shrinkage, which is a valuable measure of antitumor activity of cytotoxic drugs. This method was initially adopted by regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for drug approval. However, anatomic tumor response metrics can be misleading when applied to molecular-targeted therapies or locoregional therapies in HCC. In 2008, a group of experts convened by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) developed a set of guidelines aimed at providing a common framework for the design of clinical trials in HCC and adapted the concept of viable tumor-tumoral tissue showing uptake in arterial phase of contrast-enhanced radiologic imaging techniques-to formally amend RECIST. These amendments conformed the AASLD-JNCI (Journal of the National Cancer Institute) guidelines and are summarized and clarified in the current article. They are referred to herein as the modified RECIST assessment (mRECIST). Further studies are needed to confirm the accuracy of this measurement compared with conventional gold standards such as pathologic studies of explanted livers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                hanping_uh@hust.edu.cn
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                27 May 2021
                27 May 2021
                2021
                : 11
                : 11127
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.33199.31, ISNI 0000 0004 0368 7223, Department of Radiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, , Huazhong University of Science and Technology, ; Wuhan, 430022 China
                [2 ]GRID grid.412839.5, ISNI 0000 0004 1771 3250, Hubei Province Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, ; Wuhan, 430022 China
                [3 ]GRID grid.33199.31, ISNI 0000 0004 0368 7223, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, , Huazhong University of Science and Technology, ; Wuhan, 430022 China
                Article
                90508
                10.1038/s41598-021-90508-9
                8160271
                34045528
                a99464e7-a3d5-4c89-a195-8cf35d3b704f
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 16 January 2021
                : 10 May 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001809, National Natural Science Foundation of China;
                Award ID: 81371661
                Award ID: 81371661
                Award ID: 81371661
                Award ID: 81371661
                Award ID: 81371661
                Award ID: 81371661
                Award ID: 81371661
                Award ID: 81371661
                Award ID: 81371661
                Award ID: 81371661
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Uncategorized
                cancer imaging,cancer,liver cancer
                Uncategorized
                cancer imaging, cancer, liver cancer

                Comments

                Comment on this article