Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Eur Radiol. 2016 Sep;26(9):3243-52. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-4168-3. Epub 2016 Jan 13.

3D Quantitative tumour burden analysis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma before TACE: comparing single-lesion vs. multi-lesion imaging biomarkers as predictors of patient survival.

Author information

1
The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
2
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Campus Virchow Klinikum, Berlin, Germany.
3
Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
4
Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
5
U/S Imaging and Interventions, Philips Research North America, Cambridge, MA, USA.
6
Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA.
7
Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA. jeff.geschwind@yale.edu.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To compare the ability of single- vs. multi-lesion assessment on baseline MRI using 1D- and 3D-based measurements to predict overall survival (OS) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) before transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).

METHODS:

This retrospective analysis included 122 patients. A quantitative 3D analysis was performed on baseline MRI to calculate enhancing tumour volume (ETV [cm(3)]) and enhancing tumour burden (ETB [%]) (ratio between ETV [cm(3)] and liver volume). Furthermore, enhancing and overall tumour diameters were measured. Patients were stratified into two groups using thresholds derived from the BCLC staging system. Statistical analysis included Kaplan-Meier plots, uni- and multivariate cox proportional hazard ratios (HR) and concordances.

RESULTS:

All methods achieved good separation of the survival curves (p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed an HR of 5.2 (95 % CI 3.1-8.8, p < 0.001) for ETV [cm(3)] and HR 6.6 (95 % CI 3.7-11.5, p < 0.001) for ETB [%] vs. HR 2.6 (95 % CI 1.2-5.6, p = 0.012) for overall diameter and HR 3.0 (95 % CI 1.5-6.3, p = 0.003) for enhancing diameter. Concordances were highest for ETB [%], with no added predictive power for multi-lesion assessment (difference between concordances not significant).

CONCLUSION:

3D quantitative assessment is a stronger predictor of survival as compared to diameter-based measurements. Assessing multiple lesions provides no substantial improvement in predicting OS than evaluating the dominant lesion alone.

KEY POINTS:

• 3D quantitative tumour assessment on baseline MRI predicts survival in HCC patients. • 3D quantitative tumour assessment predicts survival better than any current radiological method. • Multiple lesion assessment provides no improvement than evaluating the dominant lesion alone. • Measuring enhancing tumour volume in proportion to liver volume reflects tumour burden.

KEYWORDS:

3D; HCC; Segmentation; TACE; Tumour burden

PMID:
26762942
PMCID:
PMC4942412
DOI:
10.1007/s00330-015-4168-3
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Springer Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center