Effect of the introduction of minimum lesion size on interobserver reproducibility using RECIST guidelines in non-small cell lung cancer patients

Cancer Science

Volumn 97, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 214-218

  Watanabe, Hirokazu ^a   Kunitoh, Hideo ^b   Yamamoto, Seiichiro ^c   Kawasaki, Shin ^b   Inoue, Akira ^b   Hotta, Katsuyuki ^b   Shiomi, Kazu ^b   Kusumoto, Masahiko ^b   Sugimura, Kazuro ^a   Saijo, Nagahiro ^b  

^a KOBE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^b NATIONAL CANCER CENTER HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^c NATIONAL CANCER CENTER   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARBOPLATIN; CISPLATIN; DOCETAXEL; GEMCITABINE; IFOSFAMIDE; NAVELBINE; NEDAPLATIN; PACLITAXEL; VINDESINE;

ADULT; ADVANCED CANCER; AGED; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CANCER COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER SIZE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DRUG RESPONSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KAPPA STATISTICS; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOLID TUMOR; SPIRAL COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; STANDARDIZATION; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

ADULT; AGED; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; CLINICAL TRIALS; FEMALE; GUIDELINES; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PLATINUM COMPOUNDS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 33645996354     PISSN: 13479032     EISSN: 13497006     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2006.00157.x     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M et al. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981; 47: 207-14.
2. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 205-16.
3. Watanabe H, Yamamoto S, Kunitoh H et al. Tumor response to chemotherapy: The validity and reproducibility of RECIST guidelines in NSCLC patients. Cancer Sci 2003; 94: 1015-20.
4. James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: Unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 523-8.
5. Sohaib SA, Turner B, Hanson JA et al. CT assessment of tumour response to treatment: Comparison of linear, cross-sectional and volumetric measures of tumour size. Br J Radiol 2000; 73: 1178-84.
6. Warren KE, Patronas N, Aikin AA et al. Comparison of one-, two-, and three-dimensional measurements of childhood brain tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93: 1401-5.
7. 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 2001; 51: 56-61.
8. Sobin LH, Wittekind CH. UICC TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, 5th edn. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1997.
9. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-74.
10. Al-Aynati M, Chen V, Salama S et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability using the Fuhrman grading system for renal cell carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003; 127: 593-6.
11. Hagen PJ, Hartmann IJ, Hoekstra OS et al. Comparison of observer variability and accuracy of different criteria for lung scan interpretation. J Nucl Med 2003; 44: 739-44.
12. Travis WD, Gal AA, Colby TV et al. Reproducibility of neuroendocrine lung tumor classification. Hum Pathol 1998; 29: 272-9.
13. Hopper KD, Kasales CJ, Van Slyke MA et al. Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167: 851-4.
14. Thiesse P, Ollivier L, Di Stefano-Louineau D et al. Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: Reasons for interobserver variability. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 3507-14.
15. Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: Implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2574-82.