Literature DB >> 14555501

Variability in response assessment in solid tumors: effect of number of lesions chosen for measurement.

Lawrence H Schwartz1, Madhu Mazumdar, Wendy Brown, Alex Smith, David M Panicek.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study was performed to systematically evaluate the variability in tumor response assessments that occurs depending on how many tumor deposits are selected for measurement at imaging. EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: The two largest perpendicular diameters of all tumor deposits in 36 patients were measured on computed tomography scans obtained at baseline and first posttherapy follow-up. A computerized modeling analysis of those data was performed to determine each patient's therapeutic response category assignment for every possible number of lesions in a grouping. The variance in the sum of measurements of these lesion groupings was calculated, and the frequency of response assessment categories was plotted against the number of lesions.
RESULTS: The computerized analysis of the resultant 1,833,821 possible combinations of tumor deposits showed that when six lesions were measured bidimensionally and four lesions were measured undimensionally, the average variance decreased by 90%. The number of different response assessment categories into which a patient was assigned decreased with increasing lesion grouping size. When six or more lesions were measured bidimensionally, 9% of all possible lesion groupings still fell into a second response category, reflecting the effect of which particular lesions are chosen for measurement.
CONCLUSIONS: Measuring larger numbers of lesions will decrease the variance. In this population, the variance decreased by at least 90% when six or more lesions were measured bidimensionally. Further confirmatory studies with larger series of patients are warranted before adopting this number as a criterion in clinical trials for assessing the activity of antineoplastic therapies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14555501

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  31 in total

1.  Semi-automated volumetric analysis of lymph node metastases during follow-up--initial results.

Authors:  Michael Fabel; H Bolte; H von Tengg-Kobligk; L Bornemann; V Dicken; S Delorme; H-U Kauczor; M Heller; J Biederer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-10-17       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Predicting outcomes in radiation oncology--multifactorial decision support systems.

Authors:  Philippe Lambin; Ruud G P M van Stiphout; Maud H W Starmans; Emmanuel Rios-Velazquez; Georgi Nalbantov; Hugo J W L Aerts; Erik Roelofs; Wouter van Elmpt; Paul C Boutros; Pierluigi Granone; Vincenzo Valentini; Adrian C Begg; Dirk De Ruysscher; Andre Dekker
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 66.675

3.  Computer-aided lymph node segmentation in volumetric CT data.

Authors:  Reinhard R Beichel; Yao Wang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Practical approach for comparative analysis of multilesion molecular imaging using a semiautomated program for PET/CT.

Authors:  Josef J Fox; Estelle Autran-Blanc; Michael J Morris; Somali Gavane; Sadek Nehmeh; André Van Nuffel; Mithat Gönen; Heiko Schöder; John L Humm; Howard I Scher; Steven M Larson
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2011-10-07       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  Reproducibility and Prognosis of Quantitative Features Extracted from CT Images.

Authors:  Yoganand Balagurunathan; Yuhua Gu; Hua Wang; Virendra Kumar; Olya Grove; Sam Hawkins; Jongphil Kim; Dmitry B Goldgof; Lawrence O Hall; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 4.243

6.  Quantitative imaging to assess tumor response to therapy: common themes of measurement, truth data, and error sources.

Authors:  Charles R Meyer; Samuel G Armato; Charles P Fenimore; Geoffrey McLennan; Luc M Bidaut; Daniel P Barboriak; Marios A Gavrielides; Edward F Jackson; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Paul E Kinahan; Nicholas Petrick; Binsheng Zhao
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.243

7.  Computed tomography assessment of response to therapy: tumor volume change measurement, truth data, and error.

Authors:  Michael F McNitt-Gray; Luc M Bidaut; Samuel G Armato; Charles R Meyer; Marios A Gavrielides; Charles Fenimore; Geoffrey McLennan; Nicholas Petrick; Binsheng Zhao; Anthony P Reeves; Reinhard Beichel; Hyun-Jung Grace Kim; Lisa Kinnard
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.243

8.  Semi-automated volumetric analysis of lymph node metastases in patients with malignant melanoma stage III/IV--a feasibility study.

Authors:  M Fabel; H von Tengg-Kobligk; F L Giesel; L Bornemann; V Dicken; A Kopp-Schneider; C Moser; S Delorme; H-U Kauczor
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-02-15       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Radiomics Response Signature for Identification of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Sensitive to Therapies Targeting EGFR Pathway.

Authors:  Laurent Dercle; Lin Lu; Lawrence H Schwartz; Min Qian; Sabine Tejpar; Peter Eggleton; Binsheng Zhao; Hubert Piessevaux
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 10.  RECIST revised: implications for the radiologist. A review article on the modified RECIST guideline.

Authors:  Els L van Persijn van Meerten; Hans Gelderblom; Johan L Bloem
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.