CT assessment of tumour response to treatment: comparison of linear, cross-sectional and volumetric measures of tumour size - PubMed (original) (raw)
Comparative Study
. 2000 Nov;73(875):1178-84.
doi: 10.1259/bjr.73.875.11144795.
Affiliations
- PMID: 11144795
- DOI: 10.1259/bjr.73.875.11144795
Comparative Study
CT assessment of tumour response to treatment: comparison of linear, cross-sectional and volumetric measures of tumour size
S A Sohaib et al. Br J Radiol. 2000 Nov.
Abstract
Changes in cross-sectional area are currently used to assess tumour response to treatment. The aims of this study were to validate a helical CT technique for volume determination using a series of phantoms and to compare tumour responses indicated by one-, two- and three-dimensional measures of tumour size change in patients treated for germ cell cancer or lymphoma. All studies were performed on an IGE HiSpeed Advantage helical CT scanner with an Advantage Windows workstation. Phantom volumes were calculated using volume reconstruction software and compared with reference volumes determined by water displacement. 20 lymph node masses were studied on serial CT scans in 16 patients treated with chemotherapy for germ cell cancer or lymphoma. For each lesion the maximum diameter, maximum cross-sectional area and volume were determined before and after treatment. Tumour response was assessed using the standard World Health Organisation criteria (i.e. changes in cross-sectional area) and the newly proposed unidimensional response evaluation criteria in solid tumour (RECIST). The CT volume measurement error was 1.0-5.1% for regularly shaped phantoms larger than 35 cm3. In the assessment of treatment response there was 90% agreement between one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) measurements and 100% agreement between 2D and three-dimensional (3D) measurements. CT volume measurements are accurate and reproducible, particularly for larger structures. Assessment of tumour response using 1D, 2D and 3D measures had limited influence on the classification of treatment response. However, the impact of CT assessment of tumour response using 1D, 2D and 3D measurements on clinical decisions and patient outcome remains to be determined.
Similar articles
- Volumetry: an alternative to assess therapy response for malignant pleural mesothelioma?
Frauenfelder T, Tutic M, Weder W, Götti RP, Stahel RA, Seifert B, Opitz I. Frauenfelder T, et al. Eur Respir J. 2011 Jul;38(1):162-8. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00146110. Epub 2011 Jan 27. Eur Respir J. 2011. PMID: 21273389 - Comparison of treatment response classifications between unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric measurements of metastatic lung lesions on chest computed tomography.
Tran LN, Brown MS, Goldin JG, Yan X, Pais RC, McNitt-Gray MF, Gjertson D, Rogers SR, Aberle DR. Tran LN, et al. Acad Radiol. 2004 Dec;11(12):1355-60. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2004.09.004. Acad Radiol. 2004. PMID: 15596373 - The impact of 2D versus 3D quantitation of tumor bulk determination on current methods of assessing response to treatment.
Hopper KD, Kasales CJ, Eggli KD, TenHave TR, Belman NM, Potok PS, Van Slyke MA, Olt GJ, Close P, Lipton A, Harvey HA, Hartzel JS. Hopper KD, et al. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1996 Nov-Dec;20(6):930-7. doi: 10.1097/00004728-199611000-00011. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1996. PMID: 8933793 - The use of tumour volumetrics to assess response to therapy in anticancer clinical trials.
Goldmacher GV, Conklin J. Goldmacher GV, et al. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012 Jun;73(6):846-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04179.x. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012. PMID: 22242836 Free PMC article. Review. - Response Assessment Criteria and Their Applications in Lymphoma: Part 1.
Moghbel MC, Kostakoglu L, Zukotynski K, Chen DL, Nadel H, Niederkohr R, Mittra E. Moghbel MC, et al. J Nucl Med. 2016 Jun;57(6):928-35. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.115.166280. Epub 2016 Apr 28. J Nucl Med. 2016. PMID: 27127227 Review.
Cited by
- Effect of the introduction of minimum lesion size on interobserver reproducibility using RECIST guidelines in non-small cell lung cancer patients.
Watanabe H, Kunitoh H, Yamamoto S, Kawasaki S, Inoue A, Hotta K, Shiomi K, Kusumoto M, Sugimura K, Saijo N. Watanabe H, et al. Cancer Sci. 2006 Mar;97(3):214-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2006.00157.x. Cancer Sci. 2006. PMID: 16542218 Free PMC article. - Preclinical multimodality phantom design for quality assurance of tumor size measurement.
Lee YC, Fullerton GD, Baiu C, Lescrenier MG, Goins BA. Lee YC, et al. BMC Med Phys. 2011 Sep 30;11:1. doi: 10.1186/1756-6649-11-1. BMC Med Phys. 2011. PMID: 21958653 Free PMC article. - [The intra-observer variability of volumetric measurement of pulmonary nodules: comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional method].
Guo X, Wang Y, Li D, Zhang C, Cao Y, Su D, Yu T. Guo X, et al. Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi. 2014 Apr;17(4):336-41. doi: 10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2014.04.08. Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi. 2014. PMID: 24758909 Free PMC article. Chinese. - Artificial intelligence in assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma treatment response.
Spieler B, Sabottke C, Moawad AW, Gabr AM, Bashir MR, Do RKG, Yaghmai V, Rozenberg R, Gerena M, Yacoub J, Elsayes KM. Spieler B, et al. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021 Aug;46(8):3660-3671. doi: 10.1007/s00261-021-03056-1. Epub 2021 Mar 31. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021. PMID: 33786653 Review. - [Comparison of unidimensional and bidimensional measurement to assess therapeutic response in the treatment of solid tumors].
Hauth EA, Stattaus J, Forsting M. Hauth EA, et al. Radiologe. 2007 Jul;47(7):628, 630-4. doi: 10.1007/s00117-005-1329-4. Radiologe. 2007. PMID: 16440191 Clinical Trial. German.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical