0 272

Cited 2 times in

Inter-observer variability of response evaluation criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma treated with chemoembolization

 Beom Kyung Kim  ;  Kyung Ah Kim  ;  Myeong-Jin Kim  ;  Jun Yong Park  ;  Do Young Kim  ;  Sang Hoon Ahn  ;  Kwang-Hyub Han  ;  Seung Up Kim  ;  Mi-Suk Park 
 DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE, Vol.47(8) : 682-688, 2015 
Journal Title
Issue Date
Aged ; Antineoplastic Agents/administration & dosage ; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/diagnostic imaging ; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/pathology* ; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/therapy* ; Chemoembolization, Therapeutic* ; Doxorubicin/administration & dosage ; Female ; Humans ; Liver Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging ; Liver Neoplasms/pathology* ; Liver Neoplasms/therapy* ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Observer Variation ; Radiography ; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors ; Tumor Burden/drug effects
EASL ; Hepatocellular carcinoma ; Inter-observer variability ; Treatment response ; mRECIST
BACKGROUND: Data comparing EASL and mRECIST criteria for response evaluation in treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma are rare. We evaluated inter-observer variability by these two response evaluation criteria in treatment-naïve patients undergoing chemoembolization. METHODS: For 133 patients undergoing chemoembolization, two radiologists independently measured sum of bi-dimensional and uni-dimensional diameters at baseline using both EASL criteria and mRECIST, and their changes on first follow-up for up to 5 target lesions. RESULTS: Concordance correlation coefficients for sum of bi-dimensional and uni-dimensional diameters at baseline between two observers were 0.992 and 0.988, respectively. However, those for their changes on follow-up were 0.865 and 0.877, respectively. Similarly, mean differences in sum of bi-dimensional and uni-dimensional diameters at baseline between two observers were small; -0.455 and 0.079 cm, respectively. However, mean differences in changes (%) in sum of bi-dimensional and uni-dimensional diameters on first follow-up between observers increased by -9.715% and -9.320%, respectively. Regarding tumour numbers, kappa-value between observers was 0.942. For treatment response (complete or partial response, stable disease and progression), kappa-value was 0.941 by both criteria. When only up to two target lesions were assessed, kappa-value was 1.000 by both criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Inter-observer agreements using both response evaluation criteria were excellent, especially when up to two targets were assessed.
Full Text
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Radiology (영상의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Kim, Do Young(김도영)
Kim, Myeong Jin(김명진) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7949-5402
Kim, Beom Kyung(김범경) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5363-2496
Kim, Seung Up(김승업) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9658-8050
Park, Mi-Suk(박미숙) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5817-2444
Park, Jun Yong(박준용) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6324-2224
Ahn, Sang Hoon(안상훈) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3629-4624
Han, Kwang-Hyub(한광협) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3960-6539
사서에게 알리기


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.