The imaging viewpoint: How imaging affects determination of progression-free survival

Clinical Cancer Research

Volumn 19, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 2621-2628

  Sullivan, Daniel Carl ^a   Schwartz, Lawrence H ^b   Zhao, Binsheng ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER RESEARCH; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE PROCESSING; LIVER METASTASIS; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; REVIEW; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; TUMOR VOLUME; BIOASSAY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; NEOPLASMS; PROCEDURES; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCINTISCANNING; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84878090287     PISSN: 10780432     EISSN: 15573265     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2936     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. World Health Organization. WHO handbook of reporting result of cancer treatment. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1979.
2. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Ruginstein 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: 205-16.
3. Lebwohl D, Kay A, Berg W, Baladi JF, Zheng J. Progression-free survival: gaining on overall survival as a gold standard and accelerating drug development. Cancer J 2009;15:386-94.
4. Korn RL, Crowley JJ. Overview: progression-free survival as an endpoint in clinical trials with solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19:2607-12.
5. Redman MW, Goldman BH, LeBlanc M, Schott A, Baker LH. Modeling the relationship between progression-free survival and overall survival: the phase II/III trial. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:2646-56.
6. Sridhara R, Mandrekar SJ, Dodd LE. Missing data and measurement variability in assessing progression-free survival endpoint in randomized clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:2613-20.
7. Villaruz LC, Socinski MA. The clinical viewpoint: definitions, limitations of RECIST, practical considerations of measurement. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:2629-36.
8. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Swartz H, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228-47.
9. Thiesse P, Ollivier L, Stefano-Louineau DD, Negrier S, Savary J, Pignard K, et al. Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for interobserver variability. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:3507-14.
10. Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, Sabloff GS, Truong MT, Herbst RS, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2574-82.
11. Kim YK, Park G, Kim CS, Yu HC, Han YM. Diagnostic efficacy of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for the detection and characterisation of liver metastases: comparison with multidetector-row CT. Br J Radiol 2012;85:539-47.
12. Sheafor DH, Frederick MG, Paulson EK, Keogan MT, DeLong DM, Nelson RC. Comparison of unenhanced, hepatic arterial-dominant, and portal venous-dominant phase helical CT for the detection of liver metastases in women with breast carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:961-8.
13. Choi HJ, Roh JW, Seo SS, Lee S, Kim JY, Kim SK, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the presurgical detection of lymph node metastases in patients with uterine cervical carcinoma: a prospective study. Cancer 2006;106:914-22.
14. Nishino M, Jackman DM, Hatabu H, Yeap BY, Cioffredi LA, Yap JT, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) guidelines for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: comparison with original RECIST and impact on assessment of tumor response to targeted therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:W221-8.
15. Fischbach F, Knollmann F, Griesshaber V, Freund T, Akkol E, Felix R. Detection of pulmonary nodules by multislice computed tomography: improved detection rate with reduced slice thickness. Eur Radiol 2003;13:2378-83.
16. Pfannschmidt J, Bischoff M, Muley T, Kunz J, Zamecnik P, Schnabel PA, et al. Diagnosis of pulmonary metastases with helical CT: the effect of imaging techniques. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;56:471-5.
17. Smith JT, Hawkins RM, Guthrie JA, Wilson DJ, Arnold PM, Boyes S, et al. Effect of slice thickness on liver lesion detection and characterisation by multidetector CT. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2010;54: 188-93.
18. Sinsuat M, Saita S, Kawata Y, Niki N, Ohmatsu H, Tsuchida T, et al. Influence of slice thickness on diagnoses of pulmonary nodules using low-dose CT: potential dependence of detection and diagnostic agreement on features and location of nodule. Acad Radiol 2011; 18:594-604.
19. Serup-Hansen E, Hendel HW, Johannesen HH, Ottosson W, Hollensen C, Persson GF, et al. Variation in gross tumor volume delineation using CT, MRI, and FDG-PET in planning radiotherapy of anal cancer. J Clin Oncol 30, 2012 (suppl 4; abstr 652). Available from: http://meetinglibrary. asco.org/content/88440-115.
20. Winer-Muram HT, Jennings SG, Meyer CA, Liang Y, Aisen AM, Tarver RD, et al. Effects of varying CT section width on volumetric measurement of lung tumors and application of compensatory equations. Radiology 2003;229:184-94.
21. Zhao B, Schwartz HL, Moskowitz C, Wang L, Ginsberg MS, Cooper CA, et al. Effect of CT slice thickness on measurements of pulmonary metastases - initial experience. Radiology 2005;234:934-9.
22. 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;188:306-12.
23. Zhao B, James LP, Moskowitz C, Guo P, Ginsberg MS, Lefkowitz RA, et al. Evaluating variability in tumor measurements from same-day repeat CT scans in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology 2009;252:263-72.
24. Reiner CS, Karlo C, Petrowsky H, Marincek B, Weishaupt D, Frauenfelder T, et al. Preoperative liver volumetry: how does the slice thickness influence the multidetector computed tomography-and magnetic resonance-liver volume measurements? J Comput Assist Tomogr 2009;33:390-7.
25. Wang Y, de Bock GH, van Klaveren RJ, van Ooyen P, Tukker W, Zhao Y, et al. Volumetric measurement of pulmonary nodules at low-dose chest CT: effect of reconstruction setting on measurement variability. Eur Radiol 2010;20:1180-7.
26. Oxnard GR, Zhao B, Sima CS, Ginsberg MS, James LP, Lefkowitz RA, et al. Variability of lung tumor measurements on repeat computed tomography scans taken within 15 minutes. J Clin Oncol 2011;29: 3114-9.
27. Tan Y, Mann H, Guo P, Marley S, Scott M, Montalv C, et al. Assessing the effect of computed tomographic (CT) slice thickness on unidimensional (1D), bidimensional (2D) and volumetric measurements of solid tumors. Cancer Imaging 2012;12:497-505.
28. Hopper KD, Kasales CJ, Van Slyke MA, Schwartz TA, TenHave TR, Jozefiak JA. Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167:851-4.
29. Wormanns D, Kohl G, Klotz E, Marheine A, Beyer F, Heindel W, et al. Volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules at multi-row detector CT: in vivo reproducibility. Eur Radiol 2004;14:86-92.
30. Goodman LR, Gulsun M, Washington L, Nagy PG, Piacsek KL. Inherent Variability of CT lung nodule measurements in vivo using semiautomated volumetric measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186:989-94.
31. Punnen S, Haider MA, Lockwood G, Moulding F, O'Malley ME, Jewett MA. Variability in size measurement of renal masses smaller than 4 cm on computerized tomography. J Urol 2006; 176:2386-90.
32. Zhao B, Tan Y, Bell DJ, Mann H, Guo P, Guo X, et al. Exploring manual and computer-aided intra-and inter-reader variability in tumor unidimensional (1D), bi-dimensional (2D) and volumetric measurements. Eur J Radiol 2013 Mar 11. [Epub ahead of print].
33. Schwartz LH, Ginsberg MS, DeCorato D, Rothenberg LN, Einstein S, Kijewski P, et al. Evaluation of tumor measurements in oncology: use of film-based and electronic techniques. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:2179-84.
34. Zhao B, Oxnard GR, Moskowitz CS, Kris MG, Pao W, Guo P, Rusch VM, et al. A pilot study of volume measurement as a method of tumor response evaluation to aid biomarker development. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:4647-53.
35. Mozley PD, Bendtsen C, Zhao B, Schwartz LH, Thorn M, Rong Y, et al. Measurement of tumor volumes improves RECIST-based response assessments in advanced lung cancer. Transl Oncol 2012;5:19-25.
36. Byrne MJ, Nowak AK. Modified RECIST criteria for assessment of response in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Ann Oncol 2004:15: 257-60.
37. Abou-Alfa GK, Schwartz LS, Ricci S, Amadori D, Santoro A, Figer A, et al. Phase II study of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2006:24:4293-300.
38. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, Gascoyne RD, Specht L, Horning SJ, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2007:25:579-86.
39. Choi HA, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, Macapinlac HA, Burgess MA, Patel SR, et al. Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stomal tumors treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol 2007:25:1753-9.
40. Lencioni R, LIovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis 2010:30:52-60.
41. Buckler AJ, Bresolin L, Dunnick NR, Sullivan DC. A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging. Radiology 2011;258:906-14.