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

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 and Giuseppe Tonini

PLOS ONE, 2015, vol. 10, issue 7, 1-12

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

Date: 2015
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133488 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 33488&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0133488

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133488

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().