IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0133488.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prognostic Relevance of Objective Response According to EASL Criteria and mRECIST Criteria in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Loco-Regional Therapies: A Literature-Based Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Bruno Vincenzi
  • Massimo Di Maio
  • Marianna Silletta
  • Loretta D’Onofrio
  • Chiara Spoto
  • Maria Carmela Piccirillo
  • Gennaro Daniele
  • Francesca Comito
  • Eliana Maci
  • Giuseppe Bronte
  • Antonio Russo
  • Daniele Santini
  • Francesco Perrone
  • Giuseppe Tonini

Abstract

Background: The European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria and the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) are currently adopted to evaluate radiological response in patients affected by HCC and treated with loco-regional procedures. Several studies explored the validity of these measurements in predicting survival but definitive data are still lacking. Aim: To conduct a systematic review of studies exploring mRECIST and EASL criteria usefulness in predictive radiological response in HCC undergoing loco-regional therapies and their validity in predicting survival. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature was performed in electronic databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, COCHRANE LIBRARY, ASCO conferences and EASL conferences up to June 10, 2014. Our overall search strategy included terms for HCC, mRECIST, and EASL. Loco-regional procedures included transarterial embolization (TAE), transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and cryoablation. Inter-method agreement between EASL and mRECIST was assessed using the k coefficient. For each criteria, overall survival was described in responders vs. non-responders patients, considering all target lesions response. Results: Among 18 initially found publications, 7 reports including 1357 patients were considered eligible. All studies were published as full-text articles. Proportion of responders according to mRECIST and EASL criteria was 62.4% and 61.3%, respectively. In the pooled population, 1286 agreements were observed between the two methods (kappa statistics 0.928, 95% confidence interval 0.912–0.944). HR for overall survival (responders versus non responders) according to mRECIST and EASL was 0.39 (95% confidence interval 0.26–0.61, p

Suggested Citation

  • Bruno Vincenzi & Massimo Di Maio & Marianna Silletta & Loretta D’Onofrio & Chiara Spoto & Maria Carmela Piccirillo & Gennaro Daniele & Francesca Comito & Eliana Maci & Giuseppe Bronte & Antonio Russo , 2015. "Prognostic Relevance of Objective Response According to EASL Criteria and mRECIST Criteria in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Loco-Regional Therapies: A Literature-Based Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-12, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0133488
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133488
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133488
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133488&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0133488?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0133488. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.