Response Evaluation and Survival Prediction Following PD‐1 Inhibitor in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Comparison of the RECIST 1.1, iRECIST, and mRECIST Criteria

Zhou, Meng; Zhang, Chunhui; Nie, Jianhua; Sun, Yuxin; Xu, Ye; Wu, Fangfang; Huang, Yühong; Li, Shun; Wang, Yuan; Zhou, Yang; Zheng, Tongsen

doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.764189

Cited by 15 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patients with partial response (PR) and complete response (CR) were categorized as responders, patients with stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD) were categorized as non-responders, similar to earlier published studies (22,23).…”

Section: Evaluation Of Response To Chemotherapymentioning

confidence: 92%

Chemotherapy response evaluation using diffusion weighted MRI in Ewing Sarcoma: A single center experience

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Non-invasive biomarkers for early chemotherapeutic response in Ewing sarcoma family of tumors (ESFT) are useful for optimizing existing treatment protocol. Purpose To assess the role of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the early evaluation of chemotherapeutic response in ESFT. Material and Methods A total of 28 patients (mean age = 17.2 ± 5.6 years) with biopsy proven ESFT were analyzed prospectively. Patients underwent MRI acquisition on a 1.5-T scanner at three time points: before starting neoadjuvant chemotherapy (baseline), after first cycle chemotherapy (early time point), and after completion of chemotherapy (last time point). RECIST 1.1 criteria was used to evaluate the response to chemotherapy and patients were categorized as responders (complete and partial response) and non-responders (stable and progressive disease). Tumor diameter, absolute apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and normalized ADC (nADC) values in the tumor were measured. Baseline parameters and relative percentage change of parameters after first cycle chemotherapy were assessed for early detection of chemotherapy response. Results The responder:non-responder ratio was 21:7. At baseline, ADC ([0.864 ± 0.266 vs. 0.977 ± 0.246]) × 10−3mm2/s; P = 0.205) and nADC ([0.740 ± 0.254 vs. 0.925 ± 0.262] × 10−3mm2/s; P = 0.033) among responders was lower than the non-responders and predicted response to chemotherapy with AUCs of 0.6 and 0.735, respectively. At the early time point, tumor diameter (27% ± 14% vs. 4.6% ± 10%; P = 0.002) showed a higher reduction and ADC (75% ± 44% vs. 52% ± 72%; P = 0.039) and nADC (81% ± 44% vs. 48% ± 67%; P = 0.008) showed a higher increase in mean values among responders than the non-responders and identified chemotherapy response with AUC of 0.890, 0.723, and 0.756, respectively. Conclusion Baseline nADC and its change after the first cycle of chemotherapy can be used as non-invasive surrogate markers of early chemotherapeutic response in patients with ESFT.

show abstract

Section: Evaluation Of Response To Chemotherapymentioning

confidence: 92%

Chemotherapy response evaluation using diffusion weighted MRI in Ewing Sarcoma: A single center experience

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clinical efficacy was assessed utilizing PET/CT/MRI in accordance with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST1.1) ( 17 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab regimen in advanced colorectal cancer after deep hyperthermia: a single-center retrospective study

Han,

Cui,

Sun

et al. 2023

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis study aimed to explore the clinical efficacy and safety of a modified FOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin + leucovorin + 5-fluorouracil) plus bevacizumab regimen after deep hyperthermia in advanced colorectal cancer.MethodsA total of 80 colorectal cancer patients treated at our hospital were selected as research subjects. According to the random number table method, patients were divided into a control group (mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab) and a combination group (mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab after deep hyperthermia treatment), with 40 patients in each group. After six cycles of treatment, the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), levels of serum tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), vascular epidermal growth factor (VEGF), Karnofsky performance status (KPS) scores, and the occurrence of adverse events were compared between the two groups.ResultsAfter six cycles of treatment, the ORR in the combination group was higher than that in the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The DCR in the combination group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P<0.05). The serum CEA levels in the control and combination groups after treatment were significantly lower than those before treatment, and the serum CEA and VEGF levels in the combination group were significantly lower than those in the control group (all P<0.001). The KPS scores in both groups after treatment were higher than those before treatment, and the KPS scores in the combination group after treatment were significantly higher than those in the control group (all P<0.001). The incidence of fatigue and pain in the combination group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P<0.05).ConclusionmFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab after deep hyperthermia is effective in advanced colorectal cancer patients, which can effectively improve their quality of life, and the adverse events are controllable and tolerable. A randomized or prospective trial will be required to further prove these data and explore its potentiality, especially if compared to conventional treatment.

show abstract

“…Secondary study endpoints: The patients were evaluated after 3 months of treatment. (1) two groups of patients were evaluated for tumor response after treatment, and the imaging data (enhanced CT or MRI) of patients were evaluated using the mRECIST criteria [19], including complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD); (2) two groups of patients with objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR); (3) changes of liver function, renal function, ECOG and blood routine before and after treatment in the two groups; (4) occurrence of treatmentrelated adverse events(AEs) in the two groups; CR: all target lesions disappeared, no new lesions appeared, and maintained for at least 4 weeks. PR: the sum of the maximum diameters of the target lesions decreased by ≧ 30%, and maintained for at least 4 weeks.…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety analysis of TACE + sunitinib vs. sunitinib in the treatment of unresectable advanced renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study

Zheng

et al. 2023

BMC Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Since renal cell carcinoma(RCC) is insensitive to conventional chemoradiotherapy, molecularly targeted drugs are commonly used treatments for unresectable advanced RCC. The aim of this study was to explore the efficacy and safety of TACE + sunitinib vs. sunitinib in the treatment of unresectable advanced RCC. Methods This study included 98 patients with unresectable advanced RCC who were treated in Union Hospital from January 2015 to December 2018, and they met the criteria. They were divided into two groups: TACE + Sunitinib group (N = 47) and Sunitinib group (N = 51). We conducted a retrospective study to analyze the efficacy and safety of the two groups of patients. Results (1)TACE + Sunitinib group: 4 patients (8.5%) achieved CR, 27 patients (57.5%) achieved PR, 9 patients (19.1%) achieved SD, and 7 patients (14.9%) achieved PD. Sunitinib group, 0 patients (0%) achieved CR, 20 patients (39.2%) achieved PR, 14 patients (27.5%) achieved SD, and 17 patients (33.3%) achieved PD. (P = 0.017) (2)ORR: TACE + sunitinib group, 66.0%; sunitinib group, 39.2%. (P = 0.009) (3)DCR: TACE + sunitinib group, 85.1%; sunitinib group, 66.7%. (P = 0.038) (4) In the TACE + sunitinib group, mPFS was 15.6 months, mOS was 35.0 months; in the sunitinib group, the mPFS was 10.9 months, mOS was 25.7 months. (P < 0.001) (5) The incidence of abdominal pain, fever, and vomiting was higher in the TACE + sunitinib group than in the sunitinib group (abdominal pain: 55.3% vs. 13.7%; fever: 61.7% vs. 7.8%; vomiting: 40.4% vs. 19.6%; P < 0.05). The technical success rate of TACE in TACE + Sunitinib group is 100%. Conclusions The TACE + sunitinib group had higher ORR and DCR, longer OS and PFS than the sunitinib alone group. TACE combined with sunitinib can play a complementary role and is a safe and effective treatment for advanced RCC.

show abstract

Response Evaluation and Survival Prediction Following PD‐1 Inhibitor in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Comparison of the RECIST 1.1, iRECIST, and mRECIST Criteria

Cited by 15 publications

References 30 publications

Chemotherapy response evaluation using diffusion weighted MRI in Ewing Sarcoma: A single center experience

Chemotherapy response evaluation using diffusion weighted MRI in Ewing Sarcoma: A single center experience

Efficacy of mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab regimen in advanced colorectal cancer after deep hyperthermia: a single-center retrospective study

Efficacy and safety analysis of TACE + sunitinib vs. sunitinib in the treatment of unresectable advanced renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About