Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 7, pp 1871–1879 | Cite as

Parametric response mapping of dynamic CT: enhanced prediction of survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with transarterial chemoembolization

  • Seung Joon Choi
  • Jonghoon Kim
  • Hyung Sik Kim
  • Hyunjin Park
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic significance of parametric response mapping (PRM) analysis for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients undergoing transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).

Methods

We recruited 65 HCC patients who underwent TACE. These patients underwent longitudinal multiphasic CT before and after TACE. We applied PRM analysis to the baseline CT before TACE and first/second follow-up CTs. The results of PRM analyses were used to stratify patients into responders and non-responders. Overall survival was compared between the two groups. An independent survival analysis using conventional radiological assessments was performed, and the results were compared with PRM results. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify clinical factors affecting survival.

Results

The PRM analyses demonstrated that the responding group had a median survival of 529 days, while the non-responding group had a median survival of 263 days [hazard ratio (HR) 12.9, p < 0.05 for differences in survival]. The manual analyses indicated median survivals of 491 and 329 days for the responding and non-responding groups, respectively (HR 2.7, p < 0.05). Tumor size, albumin level, and PRM values were found to be significantly related to overall survival after univariate and multivariate analyses.

Conclusions

The PRM analysis could be a better predictor of overall survival for patients with HCC undergoing TACE than conventional radiological assessments.

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma Algorithms Therapeutic chemoembolization Survival analysis Longitudinal studies 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study was funded by the Institute for Basic Science (Grant Number IBS-R015-D1) and also National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) (Grant Number NRF-2016R1A2B4008545).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Statement of informed consent was not applicable since the manuscript does not contain any patient data.

References

  1. 1.
    Bosch FX, Ribes J, Díaz M, Cléries R (2004) Primary liver cancer: worldwide incidence and trends. Gastroenterology 127(5):S5–S16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P (2005) Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 55(2):74–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jarnagin WR, Gonen M, Fong Y, et al. (2002) Improvement in perioperative outcome after hepatic resection: analysis of 1803 consecutive cases over the past decade. Ann Surg 236(4):397–406 ((Discussion 406–407))CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruix J, Sala M, Llovet JM (2004) Chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 127(5):S179–S188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Llovet JM, Real MI, Montaña X, et al. (2002) Arterial embolisation or chemoembolisation versus symptomatic treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 359(9319):1734–1739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Llovet JM, Bruix J (2003) Systematic review of randomized trials for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: chemoembolization improves survival. Hepatology 37(2):429–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cammà C, Schepis F, Orlando A, et al. (2002) Transarterial chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Radiology 224:47–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mabed M, Esmaeel M, El-Khodary T, Awad M, Amer T (2009) A randomized controlled trial of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization with lipiodol, doxorubicin and cisplatin versus intravenous doxorubicin for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Cancer Care 18(5):492–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahsun R, Miller FH, Kulik LM, et al. (2010) Imaging response in the primary index lesion and clinical outcomes following transarterial locoregional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Am Med Assoc 303(11):1062–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keppke AL, Salem R, Reddy D, et al. (2007) Imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma after treatment with Yttrium-90 microspheres. Am J Roentgenol 188(3):768–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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(6):1309–1316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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(4):826–834CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suzuki C, Torkzad MR, Jacobsson H, et al. (2010) Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the response evaluation of cancer therapy according to RECIST and WHO-criteria. Acta Oncol 49(4):509–514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lencioni R, Llovet JM (2013) Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 19(6):1312–1314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Forner A, Ayuso C, Varela M, et al. (2009) Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: are response evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable? Cancer 115:616–623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Llovet JM, Mazzaferro V, Hilgard P, et al. (2008) Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 359:378–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Galbán CJ, Chenevert TL, Meyer CR, et al. (2009) The parametric response map is an imaging biomarker for early cancer treatment outcome. Nat Med 15(5):572–576CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galbán CJ, Mukherji SK, Chenevert TL, et al. (2009) A feasibility study of parametric response map analysis of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging scans of head and neck cancer patients for providing early detection of therapeutic efficacy. Transl Oncol 2(3):184–190CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim MM, Lawrence TS, Cao Y (2015) Advances in magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography imaging: assessing response in the treatment of low-grade glioma. Semin Radiat Oncol 25(3):172–180CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Galbán CJ, Han MK, Boes JL, et al. (2012) Computed tomography-based biomarker provides unique signature for diagnosis of COPD phenotypes and disease progression. Nat Med 18(11):1711–1715CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boes JL, Hoff BA, Hylton N, et al. (2014) Image registration for quantitative parametric response mapping of cancer treatment response. Transl Oncol 7(1):101–110CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Choi SJ, Kim J, Seo J, et al. (2014) Parametric response mapping of dynamic CT as an imaging biomarker to distinguish viability of hepatocellular carcinoma treated with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. Abdom Imaging 39(3):518–525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Choi SJ, Kim J, Seo J, et al. (2015) Parametric response mapping of dynamic CT for predicting intrahepatic recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after conventional transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. Eur Radiol 26:225–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dufour JF, Greten TF, Raymond E, et al. (2012) EASL–EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 56(4):908–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bruix J, Sherman M (2011) Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53(3):1020–1022CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Terzi E, Golfieri R, Piscaglia F, et al. (2012) Response rate and clinical outcome of HCC after first and repeated cTACE performed “on demand”. J Hepatol 57(6):1258–1267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim BK, Kim SU, Kim MJ, et al. (2013) Number of target lesions for EASL and modified RECIST to predict survivals in hepatocellular carcinoma treated with chemoembolization. Clin Cancer Res 19:1503–1511CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shim JH, Lee HC, Won HJ, et al. (2012) Maximum number of target lesions required to measure responses to transarterial chemoembolization using the enhancement criteria in patients with intrahepatic hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 56:406–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jung ES, Kim JHJS, Yoon EL, et al. (2013) Comparison of the methods for tumor response assessment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing transarterial chemoembolization. J Hepatol 58(6):1181–1187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meyer CR, Boes JL, Kim B, et al. (1997) Demonstration of accuracy and clinical versatility of mutual information for automatic multimodality image fusion using affine and thin-plate spline warped geometric deformations. Med Image Anal 1(3):195–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Georgiades C, Geschwind J-F, Harrison N, et al. (2012) Lack of response after initial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: does it predict failure of subsequent treatment? Radiology 265(1):115–123CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shim JH, Lee HC, Kim S-O, 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(2):708–718CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kim SH, Lee WJ, Lim HK, Lim JH (2007) Prediction of viable tumor in hepatocellular carcinoma treated with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization: usefulness of attenuation value measurement at quadruple-phase helical computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31(2):198–203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hunt SJ, Yu W, Weintraub J, Prince MR, Kothary N (2009) Radiologic monitoring of hepatocellular carcinoma tumor viability after transhepatic arterial chemoembolization: estimating the accuracy of contrast-enhanced cross-sectional imaging with histopathologic correlation. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20(1):30–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lin MingDe, Pellerin Olivier, Bhagat Nikhil, et al. (2012) Quantitative and volumetric EASL and RECIST: feasibility of a semi-automated software method to assess tumor response after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE). J Vasc Interv Radiol 23(12):1629–1637CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bargellini I, Scionti A, Mismas V, et al. (2014) Identification of responders to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma: is tumor volume measurement the way forward? Oncology 86(4):191–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mannelli L, Kim S, Hajdu CH, et al. (2009) Assessment of tumor necrosis of hepatocellular carcinoma after chemoembolization: diffusion-weighted and contrast-enhanced MRI with histopathologic correlation of the explanted liver. Am J Roentgenol 193(4):1044–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kim S, Mannelli L, Hajdu CH, et al. (2010) Hepatocellular carcinoma: assessment of response to transarterial chemoembolization with image subtraction. J Magn Reson Imaging 31(2):348–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rossi S, Garbagnati F, Lencioni R, et al. (2000) Percutaneous radio-frequency thermal ablation of nonresectable hepatocellular carcinoma after occlusion of tumor blood supply. Radiology 217(1):119–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shim SJ, Seong J, Han KH, et al. (2005) Local radiotherapy as a complement to incomplete transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Int 25(6):1189–1196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hinrichs J, Shin H, Vogel A, et al. (2016) Parametric response mapping of contrast-enhanced biphasic CT for evaluating tumour viability of hepatocellular carcinoma after TACE. Eur Radiol . doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-4203-4 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vilgrain V (2010) Advancement in HCC imaging: diagnosis, staging and treatment efficacy assessments. Hepatocellular carcinoma: Imaging in assessing treatment efficacy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 17:374–379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyGachon University Gil HospitalIncheonKorea
  2. 2.Department of Electronic Electrical and Computer EngineeringSungkyunkwan UniversitySuwonKorea
  3. 3.School of Electronic and Electrical EngineeringSungkyunkwan UniversitySuwonKorea
  4. 4.Center for Neuroscience Imaging ResearchInstitute for Basic ScienceSuwonKorea

Personalised recommendations