Display options
Cite
Ogasawara S, Kanai F, Ooka Y, et al. Initial response to sorafenib by using enhancement criteria in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Int. 2013;7(2):703-13doi: 10.1007/s12072-013-9425-4.
Ogasawara, S., Kanai, F., Ooka, Y., Motoyama, T., Suzuki, E., Tawada, A., Chiba, T., & Yokosuka, O. (2013). Initial response to sorafenib by using enhancement criteria in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology international, 7(2), 703-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-013-9425-4
Ogasawara, Sadahisa, et al. "Initial response to sorafenib by using enhancement criteria in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma." Hepatology international vol. 7,2 (2013): 703-13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-013-9425-4
Ogasawara S, Kanai F, Ooka Y, Motoyama T, Suzuki E, Tawada A, Chiba T, Yokosuka O. Initial response to sorafenib by using enhancement criteria in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Int. 2013 Jun;7(2):703-13. doi: 10.1007/s12072-013-9425-4. Epub 2013 Feb 12. PMID: 26201804.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Hepatol Int. 2013 Jun;7(2):703-13. doi: 10.1007/s12072-013-9425-4. Epub 2013 Feb 12.

Initial response to sorafenib by using enhancement criteria in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Hepatology international

Sadahisa Ogasawara, Fumihiko Kanai, Yoshihiko Ooka, Tenyu Motoyama, Eiichiro Suzuki, Akinobu Tawada, Tetsuhiro Chiba, Osamu Yokosuka

Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology and Nephrology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan. [email protected].
  2. Department of Gastroenterology and Nephrology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan.

PMID: 26201804 DOI: 10.1007/s12072-013-9425-4

Abstract

PURPOSE: Sorafenib induces early vascularity reduction in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We sought to identify differences in radiological assessment approaches and to evaluate their usefulness for the prediction of the initial response to sorafenib.

METHODS: Forty-eight patients with advanced HCC treated with sorafenib were evaluated by four-phase contrast-enhanced computed tomography. All target lesions were analyzed using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), the EASL criteria, and modified RECIST (mRECIST).

RESULTS: At the initial evaluation at 4-6 weeks, rates of objective response (OR) (including both complete and partial responses), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) were 2, 71, and 27 %, respectively, according to RECIST; 15, 56, and 29 %, respectively, according to the EASL criteria; and 15, 58, and 27 %, respectively, according to mRECIST. Patients who achieved an OR according to the EASL criteria also achieved an OR according to mRECIST. Patients who achieved an OR according to the EASL criteria or mRECIST had better predicted overall survival (OS) than did patients who achieved SD (p = 0.033 and 0.028, respectively). Patients with SD according to RECIST had different outcomes depending on the response according to enhancement criteria. Patients classified as responders (complete and partial) had better predicted OS than those classified as non-responders (those classified as SD and PD) (p = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS: The enhancement criteria could be useful for prediction of the initial response to sorafenib in patients with HCC. Moreover, mRECIST appears to be simple and convenient.

Keywords: Hepatocellular carcinoma; Initial response; RECIST; Sorafenib; The EASL criteria; mRECIST

References

  1. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Jul;26(7):1201-6 - PubMed
  2. Hepatology. 2011 Mar;53(3):1020-2 - PubMed
  3. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Feb 2;92 (3):205-16 - PubMed
  4. Acad Radiol. 2011 Jan;18(1):89-96 - PubMed
  5. Oncologist. 2009 Jan;14(1):70-6 - PubMed
  6. N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 11;356(2):115-24 - PubMed
  7. Semin Liver Dis. 2010 Feb;30(1):52-60 - PubMed
  8. N Engl J Med. 2001 Apr 5;344(14):1052-6 - PubMed
  9. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jan 20;27(3):446-52 - PubMed
  10. Abdom Imaging. 2011 Jun;36(3):264-72 - PubMed
  11. J Hepatol. 2011 Oct;55(4):858-65 - PubMed
  12. N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 11;356(2):125-34 - PubMed
  13. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005 Mar-Apr;55(2):74-108 - PubMed
  14. N Engl J Med. 2008 Jul 24;359(4):378-90 - PubMed
  15. Lancet Oncol. 2007 Nov;8(11):975-84 - PubMed
  16. J Hepatol. 2001 Sep;35(3):421-30 - PubMed
  17. Dig Liver Dis. 2012 May;44(5):432-7 - PubMed
  18. Hepatol Int. 2011 Sep;5(3):850-6 - PubMed
  19. Cancer. 2010 Oct 1;116(19):4590-6 - PubMed
  20. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 10;27(35):e248-50; author reply e251-2 - PubMed
  21. Lancet Oncol. 2009 Jan;10(1):25-34 - PubMed
  22. Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47 - PubMed
  23. Mol Ther. 2011 Jun;19(6):1170-9 - PubMed
  24. Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Apr 15;14 (8):2431-6 - PubMed
  25. Hepatology. 2011 Dec;54(6):2055-63 - PubMed
  26. Lancet. 2008 Aug 9;372(9637):449-56 - PubMed
  27. J Hepatol. 2010 Jul;53(1):126-31 - PubMed
  28. Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):248-60 - PubMed
  29. Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Apr 1;18(7):2090-8 - PubMed
  30. Lancet. 2006 Oct 14;368(9544):1329-38 - PubMed
  31. Br J Cancer. 2010 Mar 2;102(5):803-9 - PubMed
  32. J Clin Oncol. 2007 May 1;25(13):1760-4 - PubMed
  33. Cancer. 1981 Jan 1;47(1):207-14 - PubMed
  34. Cancer. 2011 Nov 15;117(22):5094-102 - PubMed
  35. Eur J Radiol. 2005 Apr;54(1):118-23 - PubMed
  36. J Clin Oncol. 2007 May 1;25(13):1753-9 - PubMed
  37. Clin Cancer Res. 2011 Apr 1;17(7):1973-83 - PubMed
  38. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Mar 17;91(6):523-8 - PubMed
  39. Oncologist. 2011;16(9):1270-9 - PubMed
  40. Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Jan 15;13(2 Pt 2):747s-752s - PubMed
  41. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Sep 10;24(26):4293-300 - PubMed
  42. Lancet Oncol. 2009 Aug;10 (8):794-800 - PubMed
  43. Cancer. 2012 Jan 1;118(1):147-56 - PubMed
  44. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 May 21;100(10):698-711 - PubMed
  45. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2011 Feb;67(2):315-24 - PubMed

Publication Types