Volumetric Versus Unidimensional Measures of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Assessing Disease Response

Lubner, Meghan G.; Stabo, Nicholas; Lubner, Sam Joseph; Río, Alejandro Muñoz del; Song, C.; Pickhardt, Perry J.

doi:10.1016/j.clcc.2017.03.009

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a similar study, Mantatzis et al 27 evaluated 57 patients (17%) with hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer and also found discordance between RECIST unidimensional measurements and volumes. Lubner et al 51 looked at 105 patients on cytotoxic chemotherapy with colorectal hepatic metastatic disease and found a similar rate of discordance (16%) in response classification. Of these discordances, 14/17 patients (82%) involved a change between partial response and stable disease, but survival was similar between these groups.…”

Section: Response To Therapymentioning

confidence: 87%

Volumetric analysis at abdominal CT: oncologic and non-oncologic applications

Planz¹,

Lubner²,

Pickhardt

2019

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Volumetric analysis is an objective three-dimensional assessment of a lesion or organ that may more accurately depict the burden of complex objects compared to traditional linear size measurement. Small changes in linear size are amplified by corresponding changes in volume, which could have significant clinical implications. Though early methods of calculating volumes were time-consuming and laborious, multiple software platforms are now available with varying degrees of user-software interaction ranging from manual to fully automated. For the assessment of primary malignancy and metastatic disease, volumetric measurements have shown utility in the evaluation of disease burden prior to and following therapy in a variety of cancers. Additionally, volume can be useful in treatment planning prior to resection or locoregional therapies, particularly for hepatic tumours. The utility of CT volumetry in a wide spectrum of non-oncologic pathology has also been described. While clear advantages exist in certain applications, some data have shown that volume is not always the superior method of size assessment and the associated labor intensity may not be worthwhile. Further, lack of uniformity among software platforms is a challenge to widespread implementation. This review will discuss CT volumetry and its potential oncologic and non-oncologic applications in abdominal imaging, as well as advantages and limitations to this quantitative technique.

show abstract

Section: Response To Therapymentioning

confidence: 87%

Volumetric analysis at abdominal CT: oncologic and non-oncologic applications

Planz¹,

Lubner²,

Pickhardt

2019

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In most cancer trials, the treatment plan is determined on the basis of response categories of the lesions at CT. For RECIST 1.1, these categories are complete response (disappearance of all target lesions), PR (at least a 30% decrease in the sum of the diameters of target lesions), and PD (at least a 20% increase in the sum of the longest diameter of target lesions). SD does not meet the criteria for either PR or PD (1,12). Highly precise lesion measurement is crucial for tumor evaluation, as even minor errors in lesion measurement may alter treatment decisions by changing one category of response to another (4).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The literature indicates that volumetric measurements represent a better prediction and outcome than linear one-dimensional or two-dimensional measurements in response evaluation of cancers (6-10). Volumetric measurement is a surrogate for the number of neoplastic cells and provides a more detailed and accurate evaluation of tumor size compared with RECIST 1.1 (8,11,12).In this study, we compared the RECIST 1.1 measurement in split and merged target lymph nodes with volumetric measurement on CT scans from clinical trials.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

CT Evaluation of Lymph Nodes That Merge or Split during the Course of a Clinical Trial: Limitations of RECIST 1.1

Shafiei

Farhadi

Apolo

et al. 2021

Radiology: Imaging Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A ssessment of tumor size change in medical imaging is an essential aspect of the clinical evaluation of cancer treatment. Thus, precise and reliable lesion quantification is essential in response evaluation criteria in clinical oncology. The most common criteria used for tumor assessment remains Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). RECIST is a series of response criteria initially established in 2000 and revised in 2009 (version 1.1). Per RECIST version 1.1, up to two lymph nodes with short-axis diameter equal to or more than 1.5 cm can be selected as target lesions and be evaluated over time (1,2). Despite substantial revisions made in RECIST 1.1, some vital questions and limitations remain unsolved, including interreader and intrareader variations of measurements, improper method of tumor assessment in the setting of image-based focal treatment (chemoembolization, radiofrequency ablation), and lack of tumor size change with new cancer therapies when necrosis occurs (3-5).Adjacent nodes often merge as the disease progresses. Conversely, conglomerated nodes can split into smaller nodes when they shrink in response to treatment. In merged target lymph nodes, RECIST 1.1 calculates the longest short-axis diameter perpendicular to the longest axis of the resulting node (herein known as "short axis"), while in split target lymph nodes, RECIST 1.1 measures the sum of short-axis diameters of all the resulting nodal fragments (2).Recent advancements in imaging modalities have allowed us to measure the volume of the lesions more easily. The literature indicates that volumetric measurements represent a better prediction and outcome than linear one-dimensional or two-dimensional measurements in response evaluation of cancers (6-10). Volumetric measurement is a surrogate for the number of neoplastic cells and provides a more detailed and accurate evaluation of tumor size compared with RECIST 1.1 (8,11,12).In this study, we compared the RECIST 1.1 measurement in split and merged target lymph nodes with volumetric measurement on CT scans from clinical trials. Materials and Methods PatientsIn this institutional review board-approved Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant

show abstract

“…Pristatant RECIST 1.1 sistemą, darbo grupė teigė, kad taikinio didžiausio matmens pokytis nėra absoliutus, vertinant gydymo veiksmingumą, ir darė prielaidą, jog tūriniai vertinimo kriterijai gali būti tikslesni [6]. Tyrimų duomenys ir mokslinėje literatūroje publikuojami tyrimų rezultatai patvirtina, jog VT pokyčių vertinimas yra jautresnis atsako vertinimo metodas, lyginant su IA matavimais [14][15][16][17].…”

Section: Rezultatų Aptarimasunclassified

“…Svarbi tyrėjo kompetencija atliekant segmentavimo korekcijas: įvertinti darinių ryšį su bronchais, pleura arba kraujagyslėmis, koreguoti darinio ribas [10]. Lubner MG. išskyrė trijų skirtingų kompetencijų vertintojus, kurių linijinių matavimų ir tūrių rezultatų pasiskirstymas tarp grupių (PL, DA, SL) skyrėsi apie 20 proc., o labiausiai skyrėsi tarp PL bei SL grupių [17]. Tyrimo duomenimis, reikšmingų skirtumų tarp rankinio ir pusiau automatinio matavimo nenustatyta.…”

Section: Rezultatų Aptarimasunclassified

Plaučių navikų ilgosios ašies ir tūrių pokyčio palyginimas vertinant atsaką į gydymą

Strazdas¹,

Urbonavičiūtė²,

Zaveckienė³

2020

PIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plečiantis plaučių vėžio (PV) gydymo metodams ir galimybėms, kasdienėje klinikinėje praktikoje vis dažniau susiduriama su taikomų naviko atsako į gydymą vertinimo metodikų ribotumo ir tobulinimo klausimais. Standartizuota solidinių navikų atsako vertinimo metodika RECIST (angl. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) 1.1 ne visais atvejais gali užtikrinti ankstyvą progresuojančios ligos nustatymą. Tyrimo tikslas. Išanalizuoti išmatuojamų navikų matmenų ir tūrių pokyčių skirtumus, vertinant PV atsaką į gydymą kompiuterinės tomografijos (KT) vaizduose. Tyrimo metodai. Retrospektyviai įvertinti 2016–2019 m. įprastai atliktų KT tyrimų duomenys. Atrankos kriterijai: verifikuotas nesmulkių ląstelių PV, KT tyrimas atliktas prieš gydymą ir du KT tyrimai gydant; plaučiuose nustatytas bent vienas išmatuojamas navikinis darinys. Matuotas navikinio darinio ilgosios ašies matmuo (IA) ir tūris pagal elipsės (VT) ir sferos modelius (VS). Matavimai atlikti rankiniu ir pusiau automatiniu būdu, naudojant VitreaWorkstation™ CAD programinę įrangą. Dydžių pokyčiai vertinti remiantis RECIST 1.1 kategorijomis: progresuojanti liga (PL), dalinis atsakas ir stabili liga. Rezultatai. Tyrime analizuoti 125 pacientų duomenys. Išmatuoti 145 navikiniai dariniai ir įvertintas jų atsakas į gydymą. Nustatytas labai stiprus ryšys tarp IA ir VT prieš gydymą ir gydant (atitinkamai r=0,921, I r=0,937, II r=0,920). Vertinant VT pokyčius I ir II kontrolinių tyrimų vaizduose, PL nustatyta dažniau nei vertinant IA pokyčius, atitinkamai – 13,8 proc. ir 6,9 proc. Remiantis VT padidėjimu, I kontroliniame tyrime nustatytas PL dažnis 36,6 proc. (n=53) atitiko IA II kontroliniame tyrime nustatytą PL dažnį 35,9 proc. (n=52). Išvada. Nustatytas labai stiprus ryšys tarp naviko IA ir VT. Naviko VT padidėjimas gali būti jautresnis būdas įvertinti PL PV sergantiems pacientams.

show abstract

Volumetric Versus Unidimensional Measures of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Assessing Disease Response

Cited by 9 publications

References 48 publications

Volumetric analysis at abdominal CT: oncologic and non-oncologic applications

Volumetric analysis at abdominal CT: oncologic and non-oncologic applications

CT Evaluation of Lymph Nodes That Merge or Split during the Course of a Clinical Trial: Limitations of RECIST 1.1

Plaučių navikų ilgosios ašies ir tūrių pokyčio palyginimas vertinant atsaką į gydymą

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About