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.
RCT Entities:
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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