Comparison between RECIST 1.1, Choi and PERCIST 1.0 criteria to evaluate response to SBRT of liver metastasis

M. A. Krauel, X. Chen-Zhao, M. N. Baez, O. H. Requejo, U. L. D. L. Guardia, C. Rodríguez
{"title":"Comparison between RECIST 1.1, Choi and PERCIST 1.0 criteria to evaluate response to SBRT of liver metastasis","authors":"M. A. Krauel, X. Chen-Zhao, M. N. Baez, O. H. Requejo, U. L. D. L. Guardia, C. Rodríguez","doi":"10.21037/amj-21-17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Currently there are no guidelines for follow-up and assessment of response in tumors undergoing liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We analyzed imaging characteristics of liver metastasis treaded by SBRT and compared the accuracy of different imaging criteria (RECIST 1.1, Choi and PERCIST 1.0) to assess treatment response. Methods: Eighty-eight liver metastasis treated with SBRT at our institution, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro, were analyzed. We retrospectively reviewed images of all CT and PET-CT studies performed to these patients at baseline and every three months after SBRT treatment during the first year. Lesion size (cm) and attenuation coefficient values (HU, Hounsfield Units) were measured. 18F-FDG uptake value was collected if PET-CT was made. Surrounding liver tissue attenuation coefficient values and eventual dilation of the biliary ducts were also analyzed. Results: In our retrospective, observational study statistical analysis shown significant differences in the assessment of response of liver metastasis treated with SBRT using different criteria in the four reviews (P<0.001). PERCIST criteria were the most sensitive to assess response. Regarding “non-metabolic” criteria, Choi criteria showed better results in the assessment of response to SBRT than RECIST 1.1. Attenuation coefficient values of perilesional parenchyma did not vary significantly along the first year except in the first quarter (P<0.016), and we did not find dilation of the bile duct after SBRT with greater frequency than in other cases. Conclusions: PERCIST were the most suitable criteria to assess response to SBRT of liver metastasis in our series. Among the rest, Choi were more appropriate than RECIST 1.1.","PeriodicalId":72157,"journal":{"name":"AME medical journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AME medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/amj-21-17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Currently there are no guidelines for follow-up and assessment of response in tumors undergoing liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We analyzed imaging characteristics of liver metastasis treaded by SBRT and compared the accuracy of different imaging criteria (RECIST 1.1, Choi and PERCIST 1.0) to assess treatment response. Methods: Eighty-eight liver metastasis treated with SBRT at our institution, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro, were analyzed. We retrospectively reviewed images of all CT and PET-CT studies performed to these patients at baseline and every three months after SBRT treatment during the first year. Lesion size (cm) and attenuation coefficient values (HU, Hounsfield Units) were measured. 18F-FDG uptake value was collected if PET-CT was made. Surrounding liver tissue attenuation coefficient values and eventual dilation of the biliary ducts were also analyzed. Results: In our retrospective, observational study statistical analysis shown significant differences in the assessment of response of liver metastasis treated with SBRT using different criteria in the four reviews (P<0.001). PERCIST criteria were the most sensitive to assess response. Regarding “non-metabolic” criteria, Choi criteria showed better results in the assessment of response to SBRT than RECIST 1.1. Attenuation coefficient values of perilesional parenchyma did not vary significantly along the first year except in the first quarter (P<0.016), and we did not find dilation of the bile duct after SBRT with greater frequency than in other cases. Conclusions: PERCIST were the most suitable criteria to assess response to SBRT of liver metastasis in our series. Among the rest, Choi were more appropriate than RECIST 1.1.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
RECIST 1.1、Choi和PERIST 1.0标准评估肝转移SBRT反应的比较
背景:目前尚无肝立体定向全身放射治疗(SBRT)肿瘤的随访和疗效评估指南。我们分析了SBRT治疗肝转移的影像学特征,并比较了不同影像学标准(RECIST 1.1、Choi和PERCIST 1.0)评估治疗效果的准确性。方法:对我院桑奇纳罗大学医院88例肝转移患者行SBRT治疗的资料进行分析。我们回顾性地回顾了这些患者在基线和SBRT治疗后第一年每三个月进行的所有CT和PET-CT研究的图像。测量病灶大小(cm)和衰减系数值(HU, Hounsfield单位)。PET-CT采集18F-FDG摄取值。同时分析肝周围组织衰减系数值及最终胆管扩张情况。结果:在我们的回顾性、观察性研究统计分析中,四篇综述中使用不同标准评估SBRT治疗肝转移的疗效差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。评价反应最敏感的是PERCIST标准。关于“非代谢”标准,Choi标准在评估SBRT应答方面的结果优于RECIST 1.1。除第一季度外,病灶周围实质的衰减系数值在第一年没有显著变化(P<0.016),我们没有发现SBRT后胆管扩张的频率高于其他病例。结论:在我们的研究中,评价肝转移患者接受SBRT治疗的疗效,最合适的标准是PERCIST。其中,Choi比RECIST 1.1更合适。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Assessment of bronchoscopy training and competency: a narrative review Evaluation & management of clinically significant hemoptysis—a clinical practice review Donation after circulatory death: a narrative review of current controversies, attitudes, and the evolving role of regional perfusion technology Airway stent associated respiratory tract infections Added value of endoscopic ultrasound to endobronchial ultrasound in non-small cell lung cancer staging
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1