PURPOSE: In Hodgkin's disease (HD), mediastinal bulk is currently defined from chest radiograph (CXR) measurements as a ratio of the maximum transverse mass diameter to the internal thoracic diameter at T5/6 level > or = 0.33. We evaluated how computed tomographic (CT) measurements of bulk correspond to those obtained from the CXR and correlated nodal mass long axis diameter with freedom from progression. METHODS:Ninety-five adult patients who had a CXR thoracic ratio of greater than 0.3 and a CT scan within 28 days of the CXR were included in the study, provided that both investigations were performed before the start of treatment. Measurements of the widest mediastinal diameter and internal thoracic diameter were made on both CXR and CT scan. The thoracic ratio (TR) was calculated for each modality and compared using paired t tests. The longest diameter of the largest individual nodal mass (LIM(CT)) was also measured from the CT and correlated with freedom from progression using Cox regression. RESULTS: There was excellent correlation between CT and CXR for measurement of TR, with TR(CT) greater than TR(CXR) (mean difference of 2%). A TR(CT) of 0. 35 was found to be equivalent to a TR(CXR) of 0.33. No single measurement of nodal size correlated with the current definition of bulk. However LIM(CT) greater than 10 cm did correlate with increased risk of progressive HD (P =.03), even after adjustment for other prognostic variables (chemotherapy regimen and Hasenclever Prognostic Index). CONCLUSION: Excellent correlation was observed between assessment of TR by CXR and CT scan. The longest diameter of the LIM(CT) greater than 10 cm was found to be associated with an increased risk of disease progression.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: In Hodgkin's disease (HD), mediastinal bulk is currently defined from chest radiograph (CXR) measurements as a ratio of the maximum transverse mass diameter to the internal thoracic diameter at T5/6 level > or = 0.33. We evaluated how computed tomographic (CT) measurements of bulk correspond to those obtained from the CXR and correlated nodal mass long axis diameter with freedom from progression. METHODS: Ninety-five adult patients who had a CXR thoracic ratio of greater than 0.3 and a CT scan within 28 days of the CXR were included in the study, provided that both investigations were performed before the start of treatment. Measurements of the widest mediastinal diameter and internal thoracic diameter were made on both CXR and CT scan. The thoracic ratio (TR) was calculated for each modality and compared using paired t tests. The longest diameter of the largest individual nodal mass (LIM(CT)) was also measured from the CT and correlated with freedom from progression using Cox regression. RESULTS: There was excellent correlation between CT and CXR for measurement of TR, with TR(CT) greater than TR(CXR) (mean difference of 2%). A TR(CT) of 0. 35 was found to be equivalent to a TR(CXR) of 0.33. No single measurement of nodal size correlated with the current definition of bulk. However LIM(CT) greater than 10 cm did correlate with increased risk of progressive HD (P =.03), even after adjustment for other prognostic variables (chemotherapy regimen and Hasenclever Prognostic Index). CONCLUSION: Excellent correlation was observed between assessment of TR by CXR and CT scan. The longest diameter of the LIM(CT) greater than 10 cm was found to be associated with an increased risk of disease progression.
Authors: Anita Kumar; Irene A Burger; Zhigang Zhang; Esther N Drill; Jocelyn C Migliacci; Andrea Ng; Ann LaCasce; Darci Wall; Thomas E Witzig; Kay Ristow; Joachim Yahalom; Craig H Moskowitz; Andrew D Zelenetz Journal: Haematologica Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Wyndham H Wilson; Stefania Pittaluga; Alina Nicolae; Kevin Camphausen; Margaret Shovlin; Seth M Steinberg; Mark Roschewski; Louis M Staudt; Elaine S Jaffe; Kieron Dunleavy Journal: Blood Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: J Kriz; R-P Mueller; H Mueller; G Kuhnert; A Engert; C Kobe; U Haverkamp; H T Eich Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Ranjana H Advani; Fangxin Hong; Richard I Fisher; Nancy L Bartlett; K Sue Robinson; Randy D Gascoyne; Henry Wagner; Patrick J Stiff; Bruce D Cheson; Douglas A Stewart; Leo I Gordon; Brad S Kahl; Jonathan W Friedberg; Kristie A Blum; Thomas M Habermann; Joseph M Tuscano; Richard T Hoppe; Sandra J Horning Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Richard I Fisher; Sally F Barrington; Franco Cavalli; Lawrence H Schwartz; Emanuele Zucca; T Andrew Lister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Clifton D Fuller; Todd J Scarbrough; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Coen R N Rasch; Mehee Choi; Joe Y Ting; Samuel J Wang; Niko Papanikolaou; David I Rosenthal Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Sarah A Milgrom; Hesham Elhalawani; Joonsang Lee; Qianghu Wang; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Bouthaina S Dabaja; Chelsea C Pinnix; Jillian R Gunther; Laurence Court; Arvind Rao; Clifton D Fuller; Mani Akhtari; Michalis Aristophanous; Osama Mawlawi; Hubert H Chuang; Erik P Sulman; Hun J Lee; Frederick B Hagemeister; Yasuhiro Oki; Michelle Fanale; Grace L Smith Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 4.379