Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography in evaluating the treatment response to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma using modified RECIST

  • Interventional
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to compare contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) for evaluating the treatment response to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Materials and methods

Treatment responses of 130 patients who underwent TACE were evaluated by CEUS and CECT. We initially compared the abilities of CEUS and CECT to detect residual tumour, which were confirmed by histology or angiography. Then, we compared the tumour response to TACE assessed by CEUS and CECT, according to Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (mRECIST).

Results

The sensitivity and accuracy of detecting residual tumour by CEUS vs. CECT were 95.9 % vs. 76.2 % (p < 0.001) and 96.2 % vs. 77.7 % (p < 0.001), respectively. For target lesions, 13 patients were observed as complete response (CR) by CEUS, compared to 36 by CECT (p < 0.001). For nontarget lesions, 12 patients were observed as CR by CEUS, compared to 22 by CECT (p = 0.006). For overall response, eight patients were observed as CR by CEUS, compared to 31 by CECT (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The diagnostic performance of CEUS was superior to CECT for detecting residual tumour after TACE. In clinical, CEUS should be recommended as an optional procedure for assessing the tumour response to TACE.

Key Points

• The mRECIST are widely applied for evaluating the response of HCC.

• Imaging method has been applied to assess the therapeutic response to TACE.

• The diagnostic performance of CEUS was superior to CECT for residual tumours.

• CEUS can be a valuable method for assessing tumour response to TACE.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CEUS:

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound

CECT:

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography

TACE:

Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization

HCC:

Hepatocellular carcinoma

mRECIST:

Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours

CR:

Complete response

PR:

Partial response

SD:

Stable disease

PD:

Progressive disease

IR:

Incomplete response

References

  1. Han KH, Kudo M, Ye SL et al (2011) Asian consensus workshop report: expert consensus guideline for the management of intermediate and advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in Asia. Oncol Basel 81:158–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bruix J, Sherman M (2011) Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53:1020–1022

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gadaleta CD, Ranieri G (2011) Trans-arterial chemoembolization as a therapy for liver tumours: new clinical developments and suggestions for combination with angiogenesis inhibitors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 80:40–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Huppert P (2011) Current concepts in transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Imaging 36:677–683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sieghart W, Pinter M, Reisegger M et al (2012) Conventional transarterial chemoembolisation in combination with sorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a pilot study. Eur Radiol 22:1214–1223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bouvier A, Ozenne V, Aube C et al (2011) Transarterial chemoembolisation: effect of selectivity on tolerance, tumour response and survival. Eur Radiol 21:1719–1726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lencioni R, Llovet JM (2010) Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis 30:52–60

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Prajapati HJ, Spivey JR, Hanish SI et al (2013) mRECIST and EASL responses at early time point by contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI predict survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated by doxorubicin drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization (DEB TACE). Ann Oncol 24:965–973

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shim JH, Lee HC, Kim SO et al (2012) Which response criteria best help predict survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma following chemoembolization? A validation study of old and new models. Radiology 262:708–718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gillmore R, Stuart S, Kirkwood A et al (2011) EASL and mRECIST responses are independent prognostic factors for survival in hepatocellular cancer patients treated with transarterial embolization. J Hepatol 55:1309–1316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim BK, Kim KA, Park JY et al (2013) Prospective comparison of prognostic values of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours with European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria in hepatocellular carcinoma following chemoembolisation. Eur J Cancer 49:826–834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Edeline J, Boucher E, Rolland Y et al (2012) Comparison of tumor response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST in patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 118:147–156

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shim JH, Han S, Shin YM et al (2013) Optimal measurement modality and method for evaluation of responses to transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma based on enhancement criteria. J Vasc Interv Radiol 24:316–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bargellini I, Bozzi E, Campani D et al (2013) Modified RECIST to assess tumor response after transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma: CT-pathologic correlation in 178 liver explants. Eur J Radiol 82:e212–e218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim YS, Rhim H, Lim HK et al (2006) Completeness of treatment in hepatocellular carcinomas treated with image-guided tumor therapies: evaluation of positive predictive value of contrast-enhanced CT with histopathologic correlation in the explanted liver specimen. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30:578–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Choi BI, Kim HC, Han JK et al (1992) Therapeutic effect of transcatheter oily chemoembolization therapy for encapsulated nodular hepatocellular carcinoma: CT and pathologic findings. Radiology 182:709–713

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Imaeda T, Yamawaki Y, Seki M et al (1993) Lipiodol retention and massive necrosis after lipiodol-chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma: correlation between computed tomography and histopathology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 16:209–213

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cioni D, Lencioni R, Bartolozzi C (2000) Therapeutic effect of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization on hepatocellular carcinoma: evaluation with contrast-enhanced harmonic power Doppler ultrasound. Eur Radiol 10:1570–1575

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Alzaraa A, Gravante G, Chung WY et al (2013) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative assessment of liver lesions. Hepatol Res 43:809–819

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yanagisawa K, Moriyasu F, Miyahara T, Yuki M, Iijima H (2007) Phagocytosis of ultrasound contrast agent microbubbles by Kupffer cells. Ultrasound Med Biol 33:318–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Salvaggio G, Campisi A, Lo GV, Cannella I, Meloni MF, Caruso G (2010) Evaluation of posttreatment response of hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of ultrasonography with second-generation ultrasound contrast agent and multidetector CT. Abdom Imaging 35:447–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Minami Y, Kudo M, Kawasaki T et al (2003) Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma: usefulness of coded phase-inversion harmonic sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:703–708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Numata K, Tanaka K, Kiba T et al (2001) Using contrast-enhanced sonography to assess the effectiveness of transcatheter arterial embolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:1199–1205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Youk JH, Lee JM, Kim CS (2003) Therapeutic response evaluation of malignant hepatic masses treated by interventional procedures with contrast-enhanced agent detection imaging. J Ultrasound Med 22:911–920

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Leen E, Averkiou M, Arditi M et al (2012) Dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound assessment of the vascular effects of novel therapeutics in early stage trials. Eur Radiol 22:1442–1450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ding H, Kudo M, Onda H et al (2001) Evaluation of posttreatment response of hepatocellular carcinoma with contrast-enhanced coded phase-inversion harmonic US: comparison with dynamic CT. Radiology 221:721–730

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Moschouris H, Malagari K, Papadaki MG et al (2011) Short-term evaluation of liver tumors after transarterial chemoembolization: limitations and feasibility of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Abdom Imaging 36:718–728

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee JK, Chung YH, Song BC et al (2002) Recurrences of hepatocellular carcinoma following initial remission by transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 17:52–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kono Y, Lucidarme O, Choi SH et al (2007) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound as a predictor of treatment efficacy within 2 weeks after transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol 18:57–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Xiao-yan Xie. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Methodology: retrospective, diagnostic or prognostic study, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Ultrasonics, Sun Yat-Sen University, 58 Zhongshan Road 2, Guangzhou, 510080, People’s Republic of China

    Ming Liu, Man-xia Lin, Zuo-feng Xu, Wei Wang & Xiao-yan Xie

  2. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Sun Yat-Sen University, 58 Zhongshan Road 2, Guangzhou, 510080, People’s Republic of China

    Ming-de Lu & Ming Kuang

  3. Department of Radiology, Sun Yat-Sen University, 58 Zhongshan Road 2, Guangzhou, 510080, People’s Republic of China

    Ke-guo Zheng

  4. Department of Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-Sen University, 58 Zhongshan Road 2, Guangzhou, 510080, People’s Republic of China

    Wen-quan Zhuang

  5. The First Affiliated Hospital, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Sun Yat-Sen University, 58 Zhongshan Road 2, Guangzhou, 510080, People’s Republic of China

    Ming Liu, Man-xia Lin, Ming-de Lu, Zuo-feng Xu, Wei Wang, Ming Kuang & Xiao-yan Xie

Authors
  1. Ming Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Man-xia Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ming-de Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zuo-feng Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ke-guo Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ming Kuang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wen-quan Zhuang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Xiao-yan Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiao-yan Xie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, M., Lin, Mx., Lu, Md. et al. Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography in evaluating the treatment response to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma using modified RECIST. Eur Radiol 25, 2502–2511 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3611-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3611-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation