RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To assess the inter-operator concordance and the potential sources of discordance in defining response to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: All patients who received sorafenib between September 2008 and February 2015 were scrutinised for this retrospective study. Images were evaluated separately by three radiologists with different expertise in liver imaging (operator 1, >10 years; operator 2, 5 years; operator 3, no specific training in liver imaging), according to: response evaluation radiological criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) 1.1, modified RECIST (mRECIST) and response evaluation criteria in cancer of the liver (RECICL). RESULTS: The overall response concordance between the more expert operators was good, irrespective of the criteria (RECIST 1.1, ĸ = 0.840; mRECIST, ĸ = 0.871; RECICL, ĸ = 0.819). Concordance between the less expert operator and the other colleagues was lower. The most evident discordance was in target lesion response assessment, with expert operators disagreeing mostly on lesion selection and less expert operators on lesion measurement. As a clinical correlate, overall survival was more tightly related with "progressive disease" as assessed by the expert compared to the same assessment performed by operator 3. CONCLUSIONS: Decision on whether a patient is a responder or progressor under sorafenib may vary among different operators, especially in case of a non-specifically trained radiologist. Regardless of the adopted criteria, patients should be evaluated by experienced radiologists to minimise variability in this critical instance. KEY POINTS: ⢠Inter-operator variability in the assessment of response to sorafenib is poorly known. ⢠The concordance between operators with expertise in liver imaging was good. ⢠Target lesions selection was the main source of discordance between expert operators. ⢠Concordance with non-specifically trained operator was lower, independently from the response criteria. ⢠The non-specifically trained operator was mainly discordant in measurements of target lesions.
Asunto(s)
Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Hepáticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Niacinamida/análogos & derivados , Compuestos de Fenilurea/uso terapéutico , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/diagnóstico por imagen , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/patología , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/secundario , Competencia Clínica , Errores Diagnósticos , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias Hepáticas/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Hepáticas/patología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Niacinamida/uso terapéutico , Variaciones Dependientes del Observador , Criterios de Evaluación de Respuesta en Tumores Sólidos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Sorafenib , Análisis de Supervivencia , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/métodos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of a homeopathic syrup on cough has been demonstrated in an adult population in a previous double-blind randomized study. The present prospective observational study investigated children affected by wet acute cough caused by non-complicated URTIs, comparing those who received the homeopathic syrup versus those treated with the homeopathic syrup plus antibiotic. OBJECTIVES: The aims were: 1) to assess whether the addition of antibiotics to a symptomatic treatment had a role in reducing the severity and duration of acute cough in a pediatric population, as well as in improving cough resolution; 2) to verify the safety of the two treatments. METHODS: Eighty-five children were enrolled in an open study: 46 children received homeopathic syrup alone for 10 days and 39 children received homeopathic syrup for 10 days plus oral antibiotic treatment (amoxicillin/clavulanate, clarithromycin, and erythromycin) for 7 days. To assess cough severity we used a subjective verbal category-descriptive (VCD) scale. RESULTS: Cough VCD score was significantly (P < 0.001) reduced in both groups starting from the second day of treatment (-0.52 ± 0.66 in the homeopathic syrup group and -0.56 ± 0.55 in children receiving homeopathic syrup plus oral antibiotic treatment). No significant differences in cough severity or resolution were found between the two groups of children in any of the 28 days of the study. After the first week (day 8) cough was completely resolved in more than one-half of patients in both groups. Two children (4.3 %) reported adverse effects in the group treated with the homeopathic syrup alone, versus 9 children (23.1 %) in the group treated with the homeopathic syrup plus antibiotics (P = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm that the homeopathic treatment in question has potential benefits for cough in children as well, and highlight the strong safety profile of this treatment. Additional antibiotic prescription was not associated with a greater cough reduction, and presented more adverse events than the homeopathic syrup alone.