Inter-operator variability and source of errors in tumour response assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib
- 23 Downloads
To assess the inter-operator concordance and the potential sources of discordance in defining response to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
All patients who received sorafenib between September 2008 and February 2015 were scrutinised for this retrospective study. Images were evaluated separately by three radiologists with different expertise in liver imaging (operator 1, >10 years; operator 2, 5 years; operator 3, no specific training in liver imaging), according to: response evaluation radiological criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) 1.1, modified RECIST (mRECIST) and response evaluation criteria in cancer of the liver (RECICL).
The overall response concordance between the more expert operators was good, irrespective of the criteria (RECIST 1.1, ĸ = 0.840; mRECIST, ĸ = 0.871; RECICL, ĸ = 0.819). Concordance between the less expert operator and the other colleagues was lower. The most evident discordance was in target lesion response assessment, with expert operators disagreeing mostly on lesion selection and less expert operators on lesion measurement. As a clinical correlate, overall survival was more tightly related with “progressive disease” as assessed by the expert compared to the same assessment performed by operator 3.
Decision on whether a patient is a responder or progressor under sorafenib may vary among different operators, especially in case of a non-specifically trained radiologist. Regardless of the adopted criteria, patients should be evaluated by experienced radiologists to minimise variability in this critical instance.
• Inter-operator variability in the assessment of response to sorafenib is poorly known.
• The concordance between operators with expertise in liver imaging was good.
• Target lesions selection was the main source of discordance between expert operators.
• Concordance with non-specifically trained operator was lower, independently from the response criteria.
• The non-specifically trained operator was mainly discordant in measurements of target lesions.
KeywordsCarcinoma, hepatocellular Sorafenib Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours Tomography, X-ray computed Magnetic resonance imaging
Response evaluation criteria in cancer of the liver
Response evaluation radiological criteria in solid tumours
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Fabio Piscaglia.
Conflict of interest
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.
Statistics and biometry
One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.
Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
• performed at one institution
- 3.Randrup Hansen C, Grimm D, Bauer J, Wehland M, Magnusson NE (2017) Effects and side effects of using sorafenib and sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Int J Mol Sci 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18020461
- 5.Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC et al (2007) Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol 25:1753–1759CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Katyal S, Oliver JH 3rd, Peterson MS et al (2000) Extrahepatic metastases of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 216:698-703Google Scholar
- 15.Portney LG, Watkins MP (2009) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice, 3rd edn. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
- 18.Sato Y, Watanabe H, Sone M et al (2013) Tumor response evaluation criteria for HCC (hepatocellular carcinoma) treated using TACE (transcatheter arterial chemoembolization): RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors) version 1.1 and mRECIST (modified RECIST): JIVROSG-0602. Ups J Med Sci 118:16–22CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 24.Ronot M, Bouattour M, Wassermann J et al (2014) Alternative Response Criteria (Choi, European association for the study of the liver, and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST]) Versus RECIST 1.1 in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib. Oncologist 19:394–402CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 25.Gavanier M, Ayav A, Sellal C et al (2016) CT imaging findings in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib: alternative response criteria (Choi), European Association for the Study of the Liver, and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (mRECIST) versus RECIST 1.1. Eur J Radiol 85:103–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Arizumi T, Ueshima K, Takeda H et al (2014). Comparison of systems for assessment of post-therapeutic response to sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol 49:1578-1587Google Scholar