Serial therapy-induced changes in tumor shape in cervical cancer and their impact on assessing tumor volume and treatment response

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 187, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 65-72

  Mayr, Nina A ^a   Yuh, William T C ^b   Taoka, Toshiaki ^c   Wang, Jian Z ^a   Wu, Dee H ^d   Montebello, Joseph F ^a   Meeks, Sanford L ^e   Paulino, Arnold C ^f   Magnotta, Vincent A ^c   Adli, Mustafa ^c   Sorosky, Joel I ^g   Knopp, Michael V ^b   Buatti, John M ^c  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e M D ANDERSON CANCER CENTER ORLANDO   (United States)

^f BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Response configuration; Tumor configuration; Tumor response; Tumor shape; Tumor size measurement; Tumor volume

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; APPARATUS; ARTICLE; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR VOLUME; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; VOLUMETRY; ADENOCARCINOMA; BRACHYTHERAPY; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; RADIATION DOSE; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; BRACHYTHERAPY; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOTHERAPY DOSAGE; TUMOR BURDEN; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 33747112450     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0039     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Therasse P. Measuring tumor response. What does it mean? Eur J Cancer 2002; 38:1817-1823
2. Husband JE, Schwartz LH, Spencer J, et al. Evaluation of response to treatment of solid tumors - a consensus statement of the International Cancer Imaging Society. Br J Cancer 2004; 90:2256-2260
3. Mayr NA, Magnotta V, Ehrhardt J, et al. Usefulness of tumor volumetry by magnetic resonance imaging in assessing response to radiation therapy in carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996; 35:915-924
4. Mayr NA, Yuh WT, Zheng J, et al. Tumor size evaluated by pelvic examination compared with 3-D quantitative analysis in the prediction of outcome for cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 39:395-404
5. Hricak H, Quivey J, Campos Z, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix: predictive value of clinical and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging assessment of prognostic factors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 27:791-801
6. Flueckiger F, Ebner F, Poschauko H, Tamussino K, Einspieler R, Ranner G. Cervical cancer: serial MR imaging before and after primary radiation therapy - a 2-year follow-up study. Radiology 1992; 184:89-93
7. Ohno Y, Kusumoto M, Kono M. Evaluation of therapeutic effect using enhanced MRI in lung cancer: evaluation of methods in terms of necrosis. Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Zasshi 1997; 57:783-790
8. Johnson CR, Khandelwal SR, Schmidt-Ullrich RK, Ravalese J III, Wazer DE. The influence of quantitative tumor volume measurements on local control in advanced head and neck cancer using concomitant boost accelerated superfractionated irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 32:635-641
9. Johnson CR, Thames HD, Huang DT, Schmidt-Ullrich RK. The tumor volume and clonogen number relationship: tumor control predictions based upon tumor volume estimates derived from computed tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 33:281-287
10. Pameijer FA, Hermans R, Manusco AA, et al. Pre- and post-radiotherapy computed tomography in laryngeal cancer: imaging-based prediction of local failure. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 45:359-366
11. Chua DTT, Sham JST, Kwong DLW, et al. Volumetric analysis of tumor extent in nasopharyngeal carcinoma and correlation with treatment outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 39:711-719
12. Lee WR, Mancuso AA, Saleh EM, Mendenhall MW, Parsons JT, Million RR. Can pretreatment computed tomography findings predict local control in T3 squamous cell carcinoma of the glottic larynx treated with radiotherapy alone? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 25:683-687
13. Hatano K, Sekiya Y, Araki H, et al. Evaluation of the therapeutic effect of radiotherapy on cervical cancer using magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 45:639-644
14. Kodoira T, Fuwa N, Kamata M, et al. Clinical assessment by MRI for patients with stage II cervical carcinoma treated by radiation alone in multicenter analysis: are all patients with stage II disease suitable candidates for chemotherapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 52:627-636
15. James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M, et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91:523-528
16. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment, Publication Number 48. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1979 (Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int.publications/9241700483. pdf)
17. Mazumdar M, Smith A, Schwatz LH. A statistical simulation study finds discordance between WHO criteria and RECIST guideline. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57:358-365
18. Chen AC, Sung WH, Wang PH, Sheu MH, Doong JL, Yuan CC. Correlation of three-dimensional tumor volumetry with cervical cancer prognostic parameters. Eur J Gynecol Oncol 2002; 23:401-404
19. Mayr NA, Taoka T, Yuh WTC, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of radiation response in cervical cancer: Regarding Hatano, et al. IJROBP 1999; 45:339-344 [letter]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 48:910-911
20. Prasad SR, Jhaveri KS, Saini S, Hahn PF, Halpern EF, Sumner JE. CT tumor response measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques - initial observations. Radiology 2002; 225:416-419
21. Sohaib SA, Turner B, Hanson JA, Farquharson M, Oliver RTD, Reznek RH. CT assessment of tumour response to treatment: comparison of linear, cross-sectional and volumetric measures of tumour size. Br J Radiol 2000; 73:1178-1184
22. Eifel PJ, Morris M, Wharton JT, Oswald MJ. The influence of tumor size and morphology on the outcome of patients with FIGO stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994; 29:9-16
23. Homesley H, Raben M, Blake D. Relationship of lesion size to survival in patients with stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix uteri treated by radiation therapy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1980; 150:529-531
24. Kovalic JJ, Perez CA, Grigsby PW, et al. The effect of volume of disease in patients with carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991; 21:905-910
25. Perez CA, Grigsby P, Nene S, et al. Effect of tumor size on the prognosis of carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated with irradiation alone. Cancer 1992; 69:2796-2806
26. Hricak H. Cancer of the uterus: the value of MRI pre-and post-irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991; 21:1089-1094
27. Burghardt E, Hofmann HMH, Ebner F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in cervical cancer: a basis for objective classification. Gynecol Oncol 1989; 33:61-67
28. Greco A, Mason P, Leung AWL, et al. Staging of carcinoma of the uterine cervix: MR-surgical correlation. Clin Radiol 1989; 40:401-405
29. Hricak H, Lacey CG, Sandles LG, et al. Invasive cervical carcinoma: comparison of MR imaging and surgical findings. Radiology 1988; 166:623-631
30. Toita T, Kakinohana Y, Shinzato S, et al. Tumor diameter/volume and pelvic node status assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MR) for uterine cervical cancer treated with irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 43:777-782
31. Warren KE, Patronas N, Aikin AA, Albert PS, Balis FM. Comparison of one-, two-, and three-dimensional measurements of childhood brain tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93:1401-1405
32. Mayr NA, Tali ET, Yuh WTC, et al. Cervical cancer: application of MR imaging in radiation therapy. Radiology 1993; 189:601-608