Inadequacy of manual measurements compared to automated CT volumetry in assessment of treatment response of pulmonary metastases using RECIST criteria.
ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to compare relative values of manual unidimensional measurements (MD) and automated volumetry (AV) for longitudinal treatment response assessment in patients with pulmonary metastases. Fifty consecutive patients with pulmonary metastases and repeat chest multidetector-row CT (median interval=2 months) were independently assessed by two radiologists for treatment response using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST). Statistics included relative measurement errors (RME), intra-/interobserver correlations, limits of agreement (95% LoA), and kappa. A total of 202 metastases (median volume=182.22 mm(3); range=3.16-5,195.13 mm(3)) were evaluated. RMEs were significantly higher for MD than for AV (intraobserver RME=2.34-3.73% and 0.15-0.22% for MD and AV respectively; P<0.05. Interobserver RME=3.53-3.76% and 0.22-0.29% for MD and AV respectively; P<0.05). Overall correlation was significantly better for AV than for MD (P<0.05). Intraobserver 95% LoAs were -1.85 to 1.75 mm for MD and -11.28 to 9.84 mm(3) for AV. The interobserver 95% LoA were -1.46 to 1.92 mm for MD and -11.17 to 9.33 mm(3) for AV. There was total intra-/interobserver agreement on response using AV (kappa=1). MD intra- and interobserver agreements were 0.73-0.84 and 0.77-0.80 respectively. Of the 200 MD response ratings, 28 (14/50 patients) were discordant. Agreement using MD dropped significantly from total remission to progressive disease (P<0.05). We therefore conclude that AV allows for better reproducibility of response evaluation in pulmonary metastases and should be preferred to MD in these patients.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Anticancer cytotoxic agents go through a process by which their antitumor activity-on the basis of the amount of tumor shrinkage they could generate-has been investigated. In the late 1970s, the International Union Against Cancer and the World Health Organization introduced specific criteria for the codification of tumor response evaluation. In 1994, several organizations involved in clinical research combined forces to tackle the review of these criteria on the basis of the experience and knowledge acquired since then. After several years of intensive discussions, a new set of guidelines is ready that will supersede the former criteria. In parallel to this initiative, one of the participating groups developed a model by which response rates could be derived from unidimensional measurement of tumor lesions instead of the usual bidimensional approach. This new concept has been largely validated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group and integrated into the present guidelines. This special article also provides some philosophic background to clarify the various purposes of response evaluation. It proposes a model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions, characterized by target lesions (to be measured) and nontarget lesions, is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment. Methods of assessing tumor lesions are better codified, briefly within the guidelines and in more detail in Appendix I. All other aspects of response evaluation have been discussed, reviewed, and amended whenever appropriate.JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 03/2000; 92(3):205-16. · 14.34 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to assess the in vivo measurement precision of a software tool for volumetric analysis of pulmonary nodules from two consecutive low-dose multi-row detector CT scans. A total of 151 pulmonary nodules (diameter 2.2-20.5 mm, mean diameter 7.4+/-4.5 mm) in ten subjects with pulmonary metastases were examined with low-dose four-detector-row CT (120 kVp, 20 mAs (effective), collimation 4x1 mm, normalized pitch 1.75, slice thickness 1.25 mm, reconstruction increment 0.8 mm; Somatom VolumeZoom, Siemens). Two consecutive low-dose scans covering the whole lung were performed within 10 min. Nodule volume was determined for all pulmonary nodules visually detected in both scans using the volumetry tool included in the Siemens LungCare software. The 95% limits of agreement between nodule volume measurements on different scans were calculated using the Bland and Altman method for assessing measurement agreement. Intra- and interobserver agreement of volume measurement were determined using repetitive measurements of 50 randomly selected nodules at the same scan by the same and different observers. Taking into account all 151 nodules, 95% limits of agreement were -20.4 to 21.9% (standard error 1.5%); they were -19.3 to 20.4% (standard error 1.7%) for 105 nodules <10 mm. Limits of agreement were -3.9 to 5.7% for intraobserver and -5.5 to 6.6% for interobserver agreement. Precision of in vivo volumetric analysis of nodules with an automatic volumetry software tool was sufficiently high to allow for detection of clinically relevant growth in small pulmonary nodules.European Radiology 01/2004; 14(1):86-92. · 3.55 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The decision to use a given type of chemotherapy to treat cancer patients is often based on the prior demonstration that a proportion of similar patients has "responded" in a clinical trial. Most responses are recorded as a partial shrinkage of tumor, defined usually as a greater than 50% shrinkage of the sum of cross-sectional areas of index lesions for at least one month. The errors in categorization of response have been estimated by comparing measurements of several physicians on real or simulated malignant lesions. False categorization of partial response based on a comparison of two measurements of the same lesion was 1.3% and 12.6% for large and small simulated nodules, respectively, 13.1% for malignant neck nodes, and 0.8% for metastatic lung nodules. Partial response for hepatic lesions has been defined by a 50% or 30% decrease in liver span below the costal margin; these definitions led to a false categorization of partial response of 8.5% and 18.4%, respectively. Larger errors are evident when using the current definition of disease progression that requires only a 25% increase in area. False categorization of response is increased by comparing any of serial measurements with the initial lesions, as is usually done clinically. Many published trials have used criteria for response that are subject to large errors; an uncritical interpretation of their results may lead to inappropriate treatment of patients. Based on the results, new criteria for evaluating tumor response are proposed.Journal of Clinical Oncology 10/1984; 2(9):1040-6. · 18.04 Impact Factor