Donati Olivio F, Do Richard Kinh Gian, Hötker Andreas M, Katz Seth S, Zheng Junting, Moskowitz Chaya S, Beattie Christopher, Brown Karen T
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Eur Radiol. 2015 Sep;25(9):2779-88. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3677-4. Epub 2015 Apr 8.
To evaluate interreader and inter-test agreement in applying size- and necrosis-based response assessment criteria after transarterial embolization (TAE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), applying two different methods of European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria.
Seventy-four patients (median age, 67 years) from a prospectively accrued study population were included in this retrospective study. Four radiologists independently evaluated CT data at 2-3 (1st follow-up, FU) and 10-12 (2nd FU) weeks after TAE and assessed treatment response using size-based (WHO, RECIST) and necrosis-based (mRECIST, EASL) criteria. Enhancing tissue was bidimensionally measured (EASLmeas) and also visually estimated (EASLest). Interreader and inter-test agreements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and κ statistics.
Interreader agreement for all response assessment methods ranged from moderate to substantial (κ = 0.578-0.700) at 1st FU and was substantial (κ = 0.716-0.780) at 2nd FU. Inter-test agreement was substantial between WHO and RECIST (κ = 0.610-0.799, 1st FU; κ = 0.655-0.782, 2nd FU) and excellent between EASLmeas and EASLest (κ = 0.899-0.918, 1st FU; κ = 0.843-0.877, 2nd FU).
Size- and necrosis-based criteria both show moderate to excellent interreader agreement in evaluating treatment response after TAE for HCC. Inter-test agreement regarding EASLmeas and EASLest was excellent, suggesting that either may be used.
• Applying EASL criteria, visual estimation and bidimensional measurements show comparable interreader agreement. • EASL meas and EASL est show substantial interreader agreement for treatment response in HCC. • Agreement was excellent for EASL meas and EASL est after TAE of HCC. • Visual estimation of enhancement is adequate to assess treatment response of HCC.
应用欧洲肝脏研究协会(EASL)标准的两种不同方法,评估经动脉栓塞(TAE)治疗肝细胞癌(HCC)后,基于大小和坏死的反应评估标准在不同阅片者之间以及不同检测方法之间的一致性。
本回顾性研究纳入了来自前瞻性研究人群的74例患者(中位年龄67岁)。4名放射科医生在TAE术后2 - 3周(首次随访,FU)和10 - 12周(第二次随访,FU)独立评估CT数据,并使用基于大小的标准(WHO、RECIST)和基于坏死的标准(mRECIST、EASL)评估治疗反应。对强化组织进行二维测量(EASLmeas)并进行视觉估计(EASLest)。使用组内相关系数(ICC)和κ统计量评估不同阅片者之间以及不同检测方法之间的一致性。
在首次随访时,所有反应评估方法的不同阅片者之间的一致性从中度到高度(κ = 0.578 - 0.700),在第二次随访时为高度(κ = 0.716 - 0.780)。WHO和RECIST之间的不同检测方法之间的一致性较高(κ = 0.610 - 0.799,首次随访;κ = 0.655 - 0.782,第二次随访),EASLmeas和EASLest之间的一致性极好(κ = 0.899 - 0.918,首次随访;κ = 0.843 - 0.877,第二次随访)。
基于大小和坏死的标准在评估TAE治疗HCC后的治疗反应时,不同阅片者之间的一致性均为中度到高度。EASLmeas和EASLest之间的不同检测方法之间的一致性极好,表明二者均可使用。
• 应用EASL标准时,视觉估计和二维测量显示出相当的不同阅片者之间的一致性。• EASLmeas和EASLest在评估HCC治疗反应时显示出较高的不同阅片者之间的一致性。• HCC的TAE术后,EASLmeas和EASLest之间的一致性极好。• 强化的视觉估计足以评估HCC的治疗反应。