Article Sidebar
Views PDF: 71
Comparison of performances of the LIRADS treatment response (LR-TR) algorithm and mRECIST for detecting treatment response of HCC post-TACE
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System treatment response (LR-TR) with mRECIST (modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumours) for diagnosing the treatment response of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) by computer tomography (CT).
Subjective and Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed on 58 patients with UTTBG (M/F: 13:1, mean age 56.9 ± 11.0 years) who had follow-up after the first TACE by CT at Vietnam National Cancer Hospital and Huu Nghi Hospital from June 2021 to August 2022.
Results: Comparison to sensitivity and accuracy value of LR-TR (90% and 87,9%) was significantly higher than that of mRECIST (77.5% and 84.4%), with p<0.05; specificity, positive predictive rate of LR-TR and mRECIST, is 83.3% and 16.7%, was not significantly differential (p>0.05); negative predictive value of LR-TR (10%) was significantly lower than that of mRECIST (22.5%), with p<0.05.
Conclusion: The LR-TR Algorithm on CT four-phase shows significantly higher sensitivity and accuracy value but equivalent specific value with mRECIST.
Article Details
Keywords
Hepatocellular carcinoma, Imaging Reporting and Data System treatment response (LR-TR), modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (mRECIST), computer tomography, Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE).
References
2. Llovet JM, Lencioni R. mRECIST for HCC: Performance and novel refinements. Journal of Hepatology. 2020; 72(2):288-306. DOI: 10.1016/ j.jhep.2019.09.026.
3. Chernyak V, Fowler KJ, Kamaya A, et al. Liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) version 2018: Imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in at-risk patients. Radiology. 2018; 289(3): 816-830. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018181494.
4. Seo N, Kim MS, Park MS, et al. Evaluation of treatment response in hepatocellular carcinoma in the explanted liver with liver imaging reporting and data system version 2017. European Radiology. 2020; 30(1):261-271. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06376-5.
5. Kim SW, Joo I, Kim HC, et al. LI-RADS treatment response categorization on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: Diagnostic performance compared to mRECIST and added value of ancillary features. European Radiology. 2020; 30(5):2861-2870. DOI: 10.1007/ s00330-019-06623-9.
6. Gregory J, Dioguardi Burgio M, Corrias G, Vilgrain V, Ronot M. Evaluation of liver tumour response by imaging. JHEP Reports. 2020; 2(3):100100. DOI:10.1016/j.jhepr.2020.100100.
7. Cunha GM, Chernyak V, Fowler KJ, Sirlin CB. Up-to-date role of ct/mri li-rads in hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. 2021; 8:513-527. DOI: 10.2147/ JHC.S268288.
8. Bae JS, Lee JM, Yoon JH, et al. Evaluation of LI-RADS version 2018 treatment response algorithm for hepatocellular carcinoma in liver transplant candidates: Intraindividual comparison between CT and hepatobiliary agent-enhanced MRI. Radiology. 2021. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021203537.
9. Shropshire EL, Chaudhry M, Miller CM, et al. LI-RADS treatment response algorithm: Performance and diagnostic accuracy. Radiology. 2019; 292(1):226-234. DOI: 10.1148/radiol. 2019182135