Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: Practical approaches and limitations

Radiographics

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 329-344

  Suzuki, Chikako ^a   Jacobsson, Hans ^a   Hatschek, Thomas ^a   Torkzad, Michael R ^a   Bodén, Katarina ^a   Eriksson Aim, Yvonne ^a   Berg, Elisabeth ^b   Fujii, Hirofumi ^c   Kubo, Atsushi ^d   Blomqvist, Lennart ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^c NATIONAL CANCER CENTER HOSPITAL EAST   (Japan)

^d KEIO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE COURSE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NEOPLASM; PATHOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE PROGRESSION; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 42949161642     PISSN: 02715333     EISSN: 15271323     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/rg.282075068     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003;22(2):151-185.
2. Seddon BM, Workman P. The role of functional and molecular imaging in cancer drug discovery and development. Br J Radiol 2003;76(spec no 2):S128-S138.
3. World Health Organization. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment, http://whqlibdoc who.int/publications/9241700483.pdf.
4. Mazumdar M, Smith A, Schwartz LH. A statistical simulation study finds discordance between WHO criteria and RECIST guideline. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57(4):358-365.
5. 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 2000;92(3):205-216.
6. James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M, et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91(6):523-528.
7. Padhani AR, Ollivier L. The RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria: implications for diagnostic radiologists. Br J Radiol 2001;74(887):983-986.
8. 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 1984;2(9):1040-1046.
9. James K, Eisenhauer E, Therasse P. Re: Measure once or twice: does it really matter? J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91(20):1780-1781.
10. Prasad SR, Jhaveri KS, Saini S, Hahn PF, Halpern EF, Sumner JE. CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques - initial observations. Radiology 2002;225(2):416-419.
11. Tran LN, Brown MS, Goldin JG, et al. Comparison of treatment response classifications between unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric measurements of metastatic lung lesions on chest computed tomography. Acad Radiol 2004;11 (12): 1355-1360.
12. 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(18): 1401-1405.
13. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. EORTC RECIST Web site, questions and answers, http://www.eortc.be/Recist/Default.htm.
14. National Cancer Institute of the United States. RECIST quick reference. http://imaging.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/imaging.
15. Husband JE, Schwartz LH, Spencer J, et al. Evaluation of the response to treatment of solid tumours: a consensus statement of the International Cancer Imaging Society. Br J Cancer 2004;90(12):2256-2260.
16. Mazumdar M, Smith A, Debroy PP, Schwartz LH. A theoretical approach to choosing the minimum number of multiple tumors required for assessing treatment response. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58(2):150-153.
17. Zacharia TT, Saini S, Halpern EF, Sumner JE. CT of colon cancer metastases to the liver using modified RECIST criteria: determining the ideal number of target lesions to measure. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186(4):1067-1070.
18. Schwartz LH, Mazumdar M, Brown W, Smith A, Panicek DM. Variability in response assessment in solid tumors: effect of number of lesions chosen for measurement. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9(12): 4318-4323.
19. Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B, et al. Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. NCI Sponsored International Working Group. J Clin Oncol 1999;17(4):1244. [Published correction appears in J Clin Oncol 2000;18(11):2351.]
20. Dorfman RE, Alpern MB, Gross BH, Sandler MA. Upper abdominal lymph nodes: criteria for normal size determined with CT. Radiology 1991;180(2):319-322.
21. Einstein DM, Singer AA, Chilcote WA, Desai RK. Abdominal lymphadenopathy: spectrum of CT findings. RadioGraphics 1991;11(3):457-472.
22. Kim SH, Kim SC, Choi BI, Han MC. Uterine cervical carcinoma: evaluation of pelvic lymph node metastasis with MR imaging. Radiology 1994;190(3):807-811.
23. van den Brekel MW, Castelijns JA, Snow GB. Detection of lymph node metastases in the neck: radiologic criteria. Radiology 1994;192(3):617-618.
24. Chong S, Lee KS, Kim HY, et al. Integrated PET-CT for the characterization of adrenal gland lesions in cancer patients: diagnostic efficacy and interpretation pitfalls. RadioGraphics 2006;26(6):1811-1824; discussion 1824-1826.
25. Elsayes KM, Mukundan G, Narra VR, et al. Adrenal masses: MR imaging features with pathologic correlation. RadioGraphics 2004;24(suppl 1): S73-S86.
26. Cook DM, Loriaux DL. The incidental adrenal mass. Am J Med 1996;101 (l):88-94.
27. Bernardino ME, Walther MM, Phillips VM, et al. CT-guided adrenal biopsy: accuracy, safety, and indications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1985;144(1):67-69.
28. Silverman SG, Mueller PR, Pinkney LP, Koenker RM, Seltzer SE. Predictive value of image-guided adrenal biopsy: analysis of results of 101 biopsies. Radiology 1993; 187(3) :715-718.
29. Welch TJ, Sheedy PF 2nd, Stephens DH, Johnson CM, Swensen SJ. Percutaneous adrenal biopsy: review of a 10-year experience. Radiology 1994; 193(2):341-344.
30. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J. RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer 2006;42(8):1031-1039.
31. Hamaoka T, Madewell JE, Podoloff DA, Horto-bagyi GN, Ueno NT. Bone imaging in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22(14):2942-2953.
32. Tombal B, Rezazadeh A, Therasse P, Van Cangh PJ, Vande Berg B, Lecouvet FE. Magnetic resonance imaging of the axial skeleton enables objective measurement of tumor response on prostate cancer bone metastases. Prostate 2005;65(2):178-187.
33. Bornemann L, Kuhnigk JM, Dicken V, et al. New tools for computer assistance in thoracic CT. II. Therapy monitoring of pulmonary metastases. RadioGraphics 2005;25(3):841-848.
34. Kuhnigk JM, Dicken V, Bornemann L, et al. Morphological segmentation and partial volume analysis for volumetry of solid pulmonary lesions in thoracic CT scans. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2006;25(4):417-434.
35. Andreopoulou E, Andreopoulos D, Adamidis K, et al. Tumor volumetry as predictive and prognostic factor in the management of ovarian cancer. Anticancer Res 2002;22(3):1903-1908.
36. Beer AJ, Wieder HA, Lordick F, et al. Adenocarcinomas of esophagogastric junction: multi-detector row CT to evaluate early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Radiology 2006;239(2):472-480.
37. Bradley JD, Ieumwananonthachai N, Purdy JA, et al. Gross tumor volume, critical prognostic factor in patients treated with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;52(1):49-57.
38. Dachman AH, MacEneaney PM, Adedipe A, Car-lin M, Schumm LP. Tumor size on computed tomography scans: is one measurement enough? Cancer 2001;91 (3):555-560.
39. Sohaib SA, Turner B, Hanson JA, Farquharson M, Oliver RT, 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(875):1178-1184.
40. Yankelevitz DF, Reeves AP, Kostis WJ, Zhao B, Henschke CI. Small pulmonary nodules: volu-metrically determined growth rates based on CT evaluation. Radiology 2000;217(l):251-256.
41. Choi H. Critical issues in response evaluation on computed tomography: lessons from the gastrointestinal stromal tumor model. Curr Oncol Rep 2005;7(4):307-311.
42. Belton AL, Saini S, Liebermann K, Boland GW, Halpern EF. Tumour size measurement in an oncology clinical trial: comparison between off-site and on-site measurements. Clin Radiol 2003;58(4):311-314.
43. Schwartz LH, Ginsberg MS, DeCorato D, et al. Evaluation of tumor measurements in oncology: use of film-based and electronic techniques. J Clin Oncol 2000;18(10):2179-2184.
44. Van Hoe L, Van Cutsem E, Vergote I, et al. Size quantification of liver metastases in patients undergoing cancer treatment: reproducibility of one-,two-, and three-dimensional measurements determined with spiral CT. Radiology 1997;202(3):671-675.
45. Petrou M, Quint LE, Nan B, Baker LH. Pulmonary nodule volumetric measurement variability as a function of CT slice thickness and nodule morphology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188(2):306-312.
46. Revel MP, Bissery A, Bienvenu M, Aycard L, Le-fort C, Frija G. Are two-dimensional CT measurements of small noncalcified pulmonary nodules reliable? Radiology 2004;231(2):453-458.
47. Staron RB, Ford E. Computed tomographic volumetric calculation reproducibility. Invest Radiol 1986;21(3):272-274.
48. Winer-Muram HT, Jennings SG, Meyer CA, et al. Effect of varying CT section width on volumetric measurement of lung tumors and application of compensatory equations. Radiology 2003;229(1):184-194.
49. Slovis TL. The ALARA concept in pediatric CT: myth or reality? Radiology 2002;223(l):5-6.
50. Therasse P, Le Cesne A, Van Glabbeke M, Ver-weij J, Judson I. RECIST vs. WHO: prospective comparison of response criteria in an EORTC phase II clinical trial investigating ET-743 in advanced soft tissue sarcoma. Eur J Cancer 2005;41(10):1426-1430.
51. Tuma RS. Sometimes size doesn't matter: reevaluating RECIST and tumor response rate end-points. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98(18):1272-1274.
52. Husband JE, Hawkes DJ, Peckham MJ. CT estimations of mean attenuation values and volume in testicular tumors: a comparison with surgical and histologic findings. Radiology 1982;144(3):553-558.
53. Shankar S, vanSonnenberg E, Desai J, Dipiro PJ, Van Den Abbeele A, Demetri GD. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: new nodule-within-a-mass pattern of recurrence after partial response to ima-tinib mesylate. Radiology 2005;235(3):892-898.
54. Bruzzi P, Del Mastro L, Sormani MP, et al. Objective response to chemotherapy as a potential surrogate end point of survival in metastatic breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(22):5117-5125.
55. Buyse M, Thirion P, Carlson RW, Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Piedbois P. Relation between tumour response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: a metaanalysis. Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer. Lancet 2000;356(9227):373-378.
56. Goffin J, Baral S, Tu D, Nomikos D, Seymour L. Objective responses in patients with malignant melanoma or renal cell cancer in early clinical studies do not predict regulatory approval. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11 (16):5928-5934.
57. Ratain MJ. Phase II oncology trials: let's be positive. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11 (16):5661-5662.
58. Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, et al. Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353(2):123-132.
59. Thatcher N, Chang A, Parikh P, et al. Gefitinib plus best supportive care in previously treated patients with refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study (Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer). Lancet 2005;366(9496):1527-1537.
60. Coleman RE, Laymon CM, Turkington TG. FDG imaging of lung nodules: a phantom study comparing SPECT, camera-based PET, and dedicated PET. Radiology 1999;210(3):823-828.
61. Dorow DS, Cullinane C, Conus N, et al. Multi-tracer small animal PET imaging of the tumour response to the novel pan-Erb-B inhibitor CI-1033. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33(4):441-452.
62. Su H, Bodenstein C, Dumont RA, et al. Monitoring tumor glucose utilization by positron emission tomography for the prediction of treatment response to epidermal growth factor receptor kinase inhibitors. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12(19):5659-5667.
63. Delbeke D. Oncological applications of FDG PET imaging. J Nucl Med 1999;40(10):1706-1715.
64. Weber WA, Figlin R. Monitoring cancer treatment with PET/CT: does it make a difference? J Nucl Med 2007;48(suppl 1):36S-44S.
65. Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med 2006;47(6):1059-1066.
66. 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 1999;35(13):1773-1782.
67. Gwyther SJ. Current standards for response evaluation by imaging techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33(suppl 13):11-15.
68. Padhani AR, Husband JE. Are current tumour response criteria relevant for the 21st century? Br J Radiol 2000;73(874):1031-1033.