Article

3D Assessment of Lymph Nodes vs. RECIST 1.1.

Competence Center Medical Imaging, Fraunhofer IGD, Fraunhoferstrasse 5, 64283 Darmstadt, Germany.
Academic radiology (Impact Factor: 2.09). 03/2011; 18(3):391-4. DOI:10.1016/j.acra.2010.11.010
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In today's clinical practice, the size of lymph nodes is assessed by measuring the long and the short axis in the axial plane. This study compares this approach with three-dimensional (3D) assessment.
For a representative set of 49 lymph nodes, the axes in the axial plane have been measured and a 3D model has been created manually. Based on the 3D model, the real axial long and short axis as well as the three 3D axes and the volume have been computed and compared to the measured axial axes.
The inter-observer variability is around 10% for all measured lengths and almost 16% for the computed volume. The average relative error of the measured long (short) axial axis is 9.73% (24.57%) to the computed axial axis and 25.05% (19.97%) to the computed 3D axis, respectively. The product of the axial long axis and the square of the axial short axis provides best correlation to the volume.
This study confirms Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours 1.1 that measuring the short axis is more robust than measuring the long axis because of less impact of the node's spatial orientation. Nonetheless it is shown that considering both axes is a better prognostic factor for the volume than measuring the short axis only.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
85 Views
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors wish to determine the extent to which the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and the criteria of the World Health Organization (WHO) can predict tumor volumes and changes in volume using clinical data. The data presented are a reanalysis of data acquired in other studies, including the public database from the Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) and from a study of liver tumors. The principal result is that a given RECIST diameter predicts volume to a factor of 16 or 10 for the two data sets, respectively, by examining 95% prediction bounds and that changes in volume are predicted only little better: to within a factor of 7 for the liver data. The WHO criteria reduce the prediction bounds by a factor of 1.3 in all cases. Also, the RECIST threshold of 10 mm to measure a nodule corresponds to a transition zone width of a factor of more than 2 in volume for the nodules in the LIDC database. While the RECIST diameter is certainly correlated with the volume, and similarly for changes in these quantities, the use of the diameter introduces additional variation assuming volume is the quantity of interest. Exactly how much this reduces the statistical power of clinical drug trials is a key open question for future research.
    Medical Physics 05/2012; 39(5):2628-37. · 2.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the diagnostic performance in evaluating the response of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), between the response evaluation criteria in solid tumor (RECIST) 1.0 and RECIST 1.1, on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for advance breast cancer patients. Breast cancer patients, who underwent NAC between 2005 and 2010, were included. Both prechemotherapy and post-chemotherapy MRIs were performed within 1-4 weeks before and after NAC. Only the patients with subsequent surgery were included. The response to NAC was assessed by using RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1. Patients with a complete or partial response on MRI were considered as responders, and those with stable or progressive disease were considered as non-responders. Tumor necrosis > 50% on pathology was defined as responders and necrosis < 50% was defined as non-responders. The diagnostic accuracy of both RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 was analyzed and compared by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Seventy-nine females (mean age 51.0 ± 9.3 years) were included. Pathology showed 45 responders and 34 non-responders. There were 49 responders and 30 non-responders on RECIST 1.0, and in 55 patients, RECIST 1.0 results agreed with pathologic results (69.6%). RECIST 1.1 showed 52 responders and 27 non-responders. In 60 patients, RECIST 1.1 results were in accordance with pathology results (75.9%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.809 for RECIST 1.0 and 0.853 for RECIST 1.1. RECIST 1.1 showed better diagnostic performance than RECIST 1.0, although there was no statistically significant difference between the two.
    Korean journal of radiology: official journal of the Korean Radiological Society 01/2013; 14(1):13-20. · 1.32 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of volumetric (3D) measurements with that of unidimensional (1D) measurements by response evaluation criteria in solid tumors 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: The study included 48 patients with breast cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging was performed before the first cycle of chemotherapy and after the completion of the planned chemotherapy. The longest diameter and volume of each target lesion were measured using a TeraRecon Aquarius workstation (San Mateo, CA). Response was assessed both by using the RECIST 1.1 and volumetric criteria. Histologic response was assessed using the Sataloff criteria. The agreements between the two measures and the histologic response were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: In monitoring the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the 1D and 3D measurements showed "good agreement" (κ = 0.610) for the treatment response categories and "moderate agreement" (κ = 0.565) for the responder/non-responder categories. Disagreement was observed in 9 out of 48 comparisons (18.75 %). The percent agreement of the 1D measurement of residual lesions (79.17 %) with the pathology was higher than that by volumetric measurement (70.83 %), but there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.35). Both the 1D (rho = 0.67, p < 0.0001) and 3D measurements (rho = 0.52, p < 0.0001) showed a moderate degree of linear correlation with the pathologic diameter of residual lesions. CONCLUSION: There was generally good agreement between the 1D and 3D measurements and moderate predictive value using either approach for predicting pathological response.
    Breast Cancer 07/2012; · 1.33 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
214 Downloads
Available from
Dec 18, 2012