实体瘤反应评价标准、欧洲肝病学会和改良实体瘤反应评价标准评价原发性肝癌化疗栓塞效果一致性的比较

Comparison of response evaluation criteria in solid tumors （ RECIST）, European Association for the study of the liver （EASL） and modified RECIST criteria in evaluation of tumor response after transarterial of primary liver cancer

目的比较实体瘤反应评价标准（RECIST）、欧洲肝病学会（EASL）和改良的RECIST标准用于评价原发性肝癌化疗栓塞术后肿瘤缓解程度的一致性。方法50例确诊为原发性肝癌患者接受两次化疗栓塞术。术前1周内、治疗后4周患者分别接受螺旋CT或MR三期扫描。据RECIST、EASL、改良RECIST标准评价肿瘤缓解程度。3种方法评价缓解率的比较采用Х^2检验，一致性检验采用Kappa分析。结果据RECIST、EASL、改良RECIST标准分别评价疗效时，达CR、PR、SD、PD患者例数分别为0、10、30、10例，6、21、14、9例，6、21、13、10例。据上述3种标准评价治疗的缓解率分别为20％、54％、54％，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。RECIST与EASL标准之间、RECIST与改良RECIST标准之间的Kappa分析，Kappa值分别为0．382、0．170（P=0．000）；而EASL与改良RECIST标准之间的Kappa值达0．857（P=0．000）。结论RECIST标准低估原发性肝癌化疗栓塞术局部治疗的效果。EASL和改良RECIST标准，对疗效评价一致性程度高；但改良RECIST标准在临床实践中更简便易行。

Objective To compare the concordance among RECIST, EASL and modified RECIST criteria for the evaluation of tumor response after transarterial ehemoembolization of primary liver cancer. Methods Fifty patients with primary liver cancer underwent 2 TACE cycles separated by 30-40 days. Triphasic helical CT or MRI scans were performed at baseline, at 4 weeks after TACE procedure, and 2 independent radiologists evaluated tumor response according to above-mentioned three different criteria. Chisquare test was used to compare the response rate, and kappa coefficients were used to evaluate the coherence. Results When tumor responses were evaluated using the RECIST-EASL and modified RECIST criteria, the numbers of the patients achieved complete response, partial response, stable disease, progressive disease were O, 10,30,10 ; 6,21,14,9 ; 6,21,13,10 respectively. The objective response rates for three different criteria were 20% , 54% , 54% respectively （ P 〈 0. 01 ） . Kappa coefficients between RECIST and EASL, between RECIST and modified RECIST, between EASL and modified RECIST were 0. 382, 0. 170, and 0. 857 （ P = 0. 000）. Conclusions RECIST criteria underestimates the extent of tumor response after TACE in primary liver cancer. Both EASL and modified RECIST criteria appear to agree with each other in determining treatment response. Furthermore, the modified RECIST is more convenient in clinical practice compared with EASL criteria.