Semi-automatic software increases CT measurement accuracy but not response classification of colorectal liver metastases after chemotherapy

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 81, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 2543-2549

  Van Kessel, Charlotte S ^a   Van Leeuwen, Maarten S ^a   Witteveen, Petronella O ^a   Kwee, Thomas C ^a   Verkooijen, Helena M ^a   Van Hillegersberg, Richard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Colorectal liver metastases; Repeatability; Reproducibility; Response evaluation; Volumetry

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; LIVER METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT ERROR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ADULT; AGED; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; LIVER NEOPLASMS; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; PROGNOSIS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOFTWARE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84865232268     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: 18727727     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.12.026     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. E.A. Eisenhauer, P. Therasse, and J. Bogaerts New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1) Eur J Cancer 45 2 2009 228 247
2. A.B. Miller, B. Hoogstraten, M. Staquet, and A. Winkler Reporting results of cancer treatment Cancer 47 1 1981 207 214
3. P. Therasse, S.G. Arbuck, and E.A. Eisenhauer 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 3 2000 205 216
4. A.R. Padhani, and L. Ollivier The RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors) criteria: implications for diagnostic radiologists Br J Radiol 74 887 2001 983 986
5. P. Thiesse, L. Ollivier, and D. Di Stefano-Louineau 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 12 1997 3507 3514
6. J.E. Husband, L.H. Schwartz, and J. Spencer Evaluation of the response to treatment of solid tumours - a consensus statement of the International Cancer Imaging Society Br J Cancer 90 12 2004 2256 2260
7. W. Schima, A. Ba-Ssalamah, A. Kurtaran, M. Schindl, and T. Gruenberger Post-treatment imaging of liver tumours Cancer Imaging 7 2007 S28 S36
8. L. Dubus, M. Gayet, and M. Zappa Comparison of semi-automated and manual methods to measure the volume of liver tumours on MDCT images Eur Radiol 2010
9. L.R. Goodman, M. Gulsun, L. Washington, P.G. Nagy, and K.L. Piacsek Inherent variability of CT lung nodule measurements in vivo using semiautomated volumetric measurements AJR Am J Roentgenol 186 4 2006 989 994
10. J. Kalkmann, S.C. Ladd, G.A. de, M. Forsting, and J. Stattaus Suitability of semi-automated tumor response assessment of liver metastases using a dedicated software package Rofo 182 7 2010 581 588
11. M. Mantatzis, S. Kakolyris, K. Amarantidis, A. Karayiannakis, and P. Prassopoulos Treatment response classification of liver metastatic disease evaluated on imaging. Are RECIST unidimensional measurements accurate? Eur Radiol 19 7 2009 1809 1816
12. L.H. Schwartz, M. Mazumdar, W. Brown, A. Smith, and D.M. Panicek Variability in response assessment in solid tumors: effect of number of lesions chosen for measurement Clin Cancer Res 9 12 2003 4318 4323
13. L. Bornemann, J.M. Kuhnigk, and V. Dicken OncoTREAT - a software assistant for oncological therapy monitoring International Congress Series 1281 2005 429 434
14. J.W. Bartlett, and C. Frost Reliability, repeatability and reproducibility: analysis of measurement errors in continuous variables Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31 4 2008 466 475
15. K. James, E. Eisenhauer, and M. Christian Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement J Natl Cancer Inst 91 6 1999 523 528
16. J. Sim, and C.C. Wright The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements Phys Ther 85 3 2005 257 268
17. L.H. Schwartz, M.S. Ginsberg, and D. DeCorato Evaluation of tumor measurements in oncology: use of film-based and electronic techniques J Clin Oncol 18 10 2000 2179 2184
18. M. Fabel, H. von Tengg-Kobligk, and F.L. Giesel Semi-automated volumetric analysis of lymph node metastases in patients with malignant melanoma stage III/IV - a feasibility study Eur Radiol 18 6 2008 1114 1122
19. P.J. Robinson The effects of cancer chemotherapy on liver imaging Eur Radiol 19 7 2009 1752 1762
20. S.R. Prasad, K.S. Jhaveri, and S. Saini CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques initial observations Radiology 225 2 2002 416 419