Computed tomographic perfusion imaging for the prediction of response and survival to transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma

12Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the clinical value of computed tomographic perfusion imaging (CTPI) parameters in predicting the response to treatment and overall survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization (DEBTACE). Between December 2010 and January 2013 eighteen patients (17 men, 1 woman; mean age 69 ± 5.8 years) with intermediate stage HCC underwent CTPI of the liver prior to treatment with DEBTACE. Treatment response was evaluated on follow-up imaging according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Pre-treatment CTPI parameters were compared between patients with complete response and partial response with a Student t-test. We compared survival times with Kaplan-Meier method. CTPI parameters of patients with complete response and others did not show statistical significant difference. The mean survival time was 25.4 ± 3.2 months (95%; CI: 18.7-32.1). Survival was statistically significantly longer in patients with hepatic blood flow (BF) lower than 50.44 ml/100 ml/min (p = 0.033), hepatic blood volume (BV) lower than 13.32 ml/100 ml (p = 0.028) and time to peak (TTP) longer than 19.035 s (p = 0.015). CTPI enables prediction of survival in patients with intermediate stage HCC, treated with DEBTACE based on the pre-treatment values of BF, BV and TTP perfusion parameters. CT perfusion imaging can't be used to predict treatment response to DEBTACE.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Popovic, P., Leban, A., Kregar, K., Garbajs, M., Dezman, R., & Bunc, M. (2018). Computed tomographic perfusion imaging for the prediction of response and survival to transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology and Oncology, 52(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1515/raon-2017-0052

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free