Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: Implications for assessment of tumor response

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 21, Issue 13, 2003, Pages 2574-2582

  Erasmus, Jeremy J ^a   Gladish, Gregory W ^a   Broemeling, Lyle ^a   Sabloff, Bradley S ^a   Truong, Mylene T ^a   Herbst, Roy S ^a   Munden, Reginald F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; RADIOLOGIST; SOLID TUMOR; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR VOLUME; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DISEASE COURSE; LUNG TUMOR; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0038352143     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.01.144     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. WHO: WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization, WHO offset publication 48, 1979
2. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, et al: Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47:207-214, 1981
3. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al: New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205-216, 2000
4. Pujol JL, Demoly P, Daures JP, et al: Chest tumor response measurement during lung cancer chemotherapy: Comparison between computed tomography and standard roentgenography. Am Rev Respir Dis 145:1149-1154, 1992
5. Langendijk HA, Lamers RJ, ten Velde GP, et al: Is the chest radiograph a reliable tool in the assessment of tumor response after radiotherapy in nonsmall cell lung carcinoma? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41:1037-1045, 1998
6. Warr D, McKinney S, Tannock I: Influence of measurement error on assessment of response to anticancer chemotherapy: Proposal for new criteria of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2:1040-1046, 1984
7. Lavin PT, Flowerdew G: Studies in variation associated with the measurement of solid tumors. Cancer 46:1286-1290, 1980
8. Saini S: Radiologic measurement of tumor size in clinical trials: Past, present, and future. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:333-334, 2001
9. Schwartz LH, Ginsberg MS, DeCorato D, et al: Evaluation of tumor measurements in oncology: Use of film-based and electronic techniques. J Clin Oncol 18:2179-2184, 2000
10. Yankelevitz DF, Reeves AP, Kostis WJ, et al: Small pulmonary nodules: Volumetrically determined growth rates based on CT evaluation. Radiology 217:251-256, 2000
11. Hopper KD, Kasales CJ, Eggli KD, et al: The impact of 2D versus 3D quantitation of tumor bulk determination on current methods of assessing response to treatment. J Comput Assist Tomogr 20:930-937, 1996
12. Nawaratne S, Fabiny R, Brien JE, et al: Accuracy of volume measurement using helical CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 21:481-486, 1997
13. Werner-Wasik M, Xiao Y, Pequignot E, et al: Assessment of lung cancer response after nonoperative therapy: Tumor diameter, bidimensional product, and volume-A serial CT scan-based study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51:56-61, 2001
14. Wormanns D, Diederich S, Lentschig MG, et al: Spiral CT of pulmonary nodules: Interobserver variation in assessment of lesion size. Eur Radiol 10:710-713, 2000
15. Hopper KD, Kasales CJ, Van Slyke MA, et al: Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167:851-854, 1996
16. Gwyther SJ: Response assessment using radiological methods. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 30:45-62, 1999
17. Gwyther S, Bolis G, Gore M, et al: Experience with independent radiological review during a topotecan trial in ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol 8:463-468, 1997
18. Thiesse P, Ollivier L, Di Stefano-Louineau D, et al: Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: Reasons for interobserver variability-Groupe Francais d'Immunotherapie of the Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer. J Clin Oncol 15:3507-3514, 1997
19. Smith TA: FDG uptake, tumour characteristics and response to therapy: A review. Nucl Med Commun 19:97-105, 1998
20. Voss SD, Kruskal JB: Gene therapy: A primer for radiologists. Radiographics 18:1343-1372, 1998
21. Weissleder R: Molecular imaging: Exploring the next frontier. Radiology 212:609-614, 1999
22. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al: Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: Review and 1999 EORTC recommendations-European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer 35:1773-1782, 1999
23. Weber WA, Schwaiger M, Avril N: Quantitative assessment of tumor metabolism using FDG-PET imaging. Nucl Med Biol 27:683-687, 2000
24. Herbst RS, Mullani NA, Davis DW, et al: Development of biologic markers of response and assessment of antiangiogenic activity in a clinical trial of human recombinant endostatin. J Clin Oncol 20:3804-3814, 2002
25. Shields AF, Mankoff DA, Link JM, et al: Carbon-11-thymidine and FDG to measure therapy response. J Nucl Med 39:1757-1762, 1998