Retrospective Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Depth of Invasion by Narrow Band Imaging Magnifying Endoscopy in Patients with Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Treatment strategies for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (S-ESCC) are determined mainly on the basis of the depth of invasion. We retrospectively studied the accuracy of the depth of tumor invasion, comprehensively assessed using the Japan Esophageal Society (JES) classification. METHODS: The study group comprised 256 patients who underwent narrow band imaging (NBI) magnifying endoscopy, and endoscopic submucosal dissection for S-ESCC. The depth of invasion of S-ESCC was classified into three groups: EP/LPM, MM/SM1, and SM2. The following variables were studied retrospectively: (1) the diagnostic accuracy of non-magnifying white-light endoscopy, (2) the diagnostic accuracy of type B vessels, (3) the diagnostic accuracy of avascular area (AVA), (4) the diagnostic accuracy of the JES classification, and (5) the diagnostic accuracy of comprehensive diagnosis. The depth of invasion was assessed by white-light non-magnifying endoscopy, followed by NBI magnifying endoscopy. RESULTS: The positive predictive value (PPV) of white-light non-magnifying endoscopy was 86% for EP/LPM, 53% MM/SM1, and 74% for SM2. The PPV of the diagnosis of type B vessels was 93% for EP/LPM, 62% for MM/SM1, and 74% for SM2. The PPV of the AVA diagnosis was 73% for EP/LPM, 89% for MM/SM1, and 100% for SM2. The PPV of diagnosis according to the JES classification was 93% for EP/LPM, 65% for MM/SM1, and 77% for SM2. The PPV of the comprehensive diagnosis was 94% for EP/LPM, 63%, for MM/SM1, and 75% for SM2. CONCLUSIONS: The additional use of NBI magnifying endoscopy can enhance the diagnostic accuracy of the depth of invasion in patients with S-ESCC.

Modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors is superior to response evaluation criteria in solid tumors for assessment of responses to sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (mRECIST) and RECIST are used to assess the effect of treatment with targeted agents for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this study was to determine which set of criteria is superior in patients with advanced HCC treated with sorafenib. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study to assess the tumor response and patient prognosis of 191 patients with HCC who had been treated with sorafenib from May 2009 through December 2011. We analyzed tumor responses as shown by contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan images according to RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST and compared the findings. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 9.7 months and median overall survival was 10.8 months. Twenty-five patients (13.1 %) were assessed as responders by mRECIST and 15 (7.8 %) by RECIST 1.1. There was a significant difference in overall survival (OS) between responders and non-responders according to mRECIST (P = 0.0117), but no significant difference in OS between responders and non-responders according to RECIST 1.1 (P = 0.0722). Sixteen patients (8.4 %) had no measurable enhanced target lesions that could be assessed as required by mRECIST; however, these patients could be assessed by RECIST 1.1. According to RECIST 1.1, eight of them had stable disease (SD) and eight had progressive disease (PD). There was a significant difference in OS between these SD and PD patients (P = 0.0312). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with sorafenib for HCC should be evaluated by mRECIST; RECIST 1.1 is preferable only for assessment of patients with lesions that are non-measurable according to mRESIST.