Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the response evaluation of cancer therapy according to RECIST and WHO-criteria

Acta Oncologica

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 509-514

  Suzuki, Chikako ^a   Torkzad, Michael R ^b   Jacobsson, Hans ^a   Åström, Gunnar ^b   Sundin, Anders ^a   Hatschek, Thomas ^a   Fujii, Hirofumi ^c   Blomqvist, Lennart ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^c NATIONAL CANCER CENTER HOSPITAL EAST   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; KAPPA STATISTICS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RESPONSE EVALUATION CRITERIA IN SOLID TUMORS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TREATMENT RESPONSE; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

ADULT; AGED; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 77951249058     PISSN: 0284186X     EISSN: 1651226X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/02841861003705794     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. Publication number 48. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1979. Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/ 9241700483.pdf .
2. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, 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;92:205-216
3. Nygren P, Blomqvist L, Bergh J, Astrom G. Radiological assessment of tumour response to anti-cancer drugs: Time to reappraise. Acta Oncol 2008;47:316-318
4. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228-247
5. James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M, Terenziani M, Vena D, Muldal A, et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: Unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:523-528
6. Park JO, Lee SI, Song SY, Kim K, Kim WS, Jung CW, et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: Comparison of RECIST and WHO response criteria. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2003;33:533-537
7. Trillet-Lenoir V, Freyer G, Kaemmerlen P, Fond A, Pellet O, Lombard-Bohas C, et al. Assessment of tumour response to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: Accuracy of the RECIST criteria. Br J Radiol 2002;75:903-908
8. Fabel M, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Giesel FL, Bornemann L, Dicken V, Kopp-Schneider A, et al. Semi-automated volumetric analysis of lymph node metastases in patients with malignant melanoma stage III/IV-A feasibility study. Eur Radiol 2008;18:1114-1122
9. 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;73:1178-1184
10. Tran LN, Brown MS, Goldin JG, Yan X, Pais RC, McNitt-Gray MF, et al. Comparison of treatment response classifi cations between unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric measurements of metastatic lung lesions on chest computed tomography. Acad Radiol 2004;11:1355-1360
11. Kundel HL, Polansky M. Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology 2003;228:303-308
12. Marten K, Auer F, Schmidt S, Kohl G, Rummeny EJ, Engelke C. Inadequacy of manual measurements compared to automated CT volumetry in assessment of treatment response of pulmonary metastases using RECIST criteria. Eur Radiol 2006;16:781-790
13. Marten K, Auer F, Schmidt S, Rummeny EJ, Engelke C. Automated CT volumetry of pulmonary metastases: The effect of a reduced growth threshold and target lesion number on the reliability of therapy response assessment using RECIST criteria. Eur Radiol 2007;17:2561-2571
14. Honda O, Sumikawa H, Johkoh T, Tomiyama N, Mihara N, Inoue A, et al. Computer-assisted lung nodule volumetry from multi-detector row CT: Infl uence of image reconstruction parameters. Eur J Radiol 2007;62:106-113
15. Zhao B, Schwartz LH, Moskowitz CS, Wang L, Ginsberg MS, Cooper CA, et al. Pulmonary metastases: Effect of CT section thickness on measurement-initial experience. Radiology 2005;234:934-939
16. Jacene HA, Leboulleux S, Baba S, Chatzifotiadis D, Goudarzi B, Teytelbaum O, et al. Assessment of interobserver reproducibility in quantitative 18F-FDG PET and CT measurements of tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med 2009; 50:1760-1769
17. 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;9:4318-4323
18. Zacharia TT, Saini S, Halpern EF, Sumner JE. CT of colon cancer metastases to the liver using modifi ed RECIST criteria: Determining the ideal number of target lesions to measure. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:1067-1070
19. Darkeh MH, Suzuki C, Torkzad MR. The minimum number of target lesions that need to be measured to be representative of the total number of target lesions (according to RECIST). Br J Radiol 2009;82:681-686