Comparison of response evaluation criteria in solid tumors with volumetric measurements for estimation of tumor burden in pancreatic adenocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma

American Journal of Surgery

Volumn 204, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 580-585

  Welsh, Jessemae L ^a   Bodeker, Kellie ^a   Fallon, Elizabeth ^a   Bhatia, Sundershan K ^a   Buatti, John M ^a   Cullen, Joseph J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma; Pancreatic cancer; RECIST; Volumetry

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; LIVER CELL CARCINOMA; LIVER RESECTION; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; METASTASIS; PANCREAS ADENOCARCINOMA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR VOLUME; VOLUMETRY;

CARCINOMA, HEPATOCELLULAR; CARCINOMA, PANCREATIC DUCTAL; DISEASE PROGRESSION; HUMANS; LIVER NEOPLASMS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PANCREATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84868540098     PISSN: 00029610     EISSN: 18791883     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.07.007     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. E.A. Eisenhauer, P. Therasse, J. Bogaerts New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1) Eur J Cancer 45 2009 228 247
2. J.E. Husband, L.H. Schwartz, J. Spencer Evaluation of the response to treatment of solid tumours - a consensus statement of the International Cancer Imaging Society Br J Cancer 90 2004 2256 2260
3. S.A. Sohaib, B. Turner, J.A. Hanson CT assessment of tumour response to treatment: comparison of linear, cross-sectional and volumetric measures of tumour size Br J Radiol 73 2000 1178 1184
4. Z.H. Levine, B.R. Borchardt, N.J. Brandenburg RECIST versus volume measurement in medical CT using ellipsoids of known size Opt Express 18 2010 8151 8159
5. P. Rezai, M.F. Mulcahy, S.M. Tochetto Morphological analysis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma on multidetector row computed tomography: implications for treatment response evaluation Pancreas 38 2009 799 803
6. M.M. Tomayko, C.P. Reynolds Determination of subcutaneous tumor size in athymic (nude) mice Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 24 1989 148 154
7. J. Cohen A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales Educ Psychol Meas 20 1960 37 46
8. T. Frauenfelder, M. Tutic, W. Weder Volumetry: an alternative to assess therapy response for malignant pleural mesothelioma? Eur Respir J 38 2011 162 168
9. K. James, E. Eisenhauer, M. Christian Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement J Natl Cancer Inst 91 1999 523 528
10. Z.H. Levine, B.R. Galloway, A.P. Peskin Tumor volume measurement errors of RECIST studied with ellipsoids Med Phys 38 2011 2552 2557
11. M. Mantatzis, S. Kakolyris, K. Amarantidis Treatment response classification of liver metastatic disease evaluated on imaging Are RECIST unidimensional measurements accurate? Eur Radiol 19 2009 1809 1816
12. V. Rousson, T. Gasser, B. Seifert Assessing intrarater, interrater and test-retest reliability of continuous measurements Stat Med 21 2002 3431 3446
13. A.M. Rkein, C. Harrigal, A.C. Friedman Comparison of the accuracy of CT volume calculated by circumscription to prolate ellipsoid volume (bidimensional measurement multiplied by coronal long axis) Acad Radiol 16 2009 181 186
14. K. Marten, F. Auer, S. Schmidt 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 17 2007 2561 2571
15. C.S. van Kessel, M.S. van Leeuwen, P.O. Witteveen Semi-automatic software increases CT measurement accuracy but not response classification of colorectal liver metastases after chemotherapy Eur J Radiol 2012 Epub ahead of print
16. K. Skougaard, M.J. McCullagh, D. Nielsen Observer variability in a phase II trial - assessing consistency in RECIST application Acta Oncol 51 2012 774 780