BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Tumor "size" is used internationally as a surrogate marker for overall survival when following current response assessment protocols (World Health Organization and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). With little evidence of a relationship between tumor "size" and survival in intrinsic brain tumors, this study was undertaken to investigate the predictive value of MR imaging-defined tumor size for survival in patients with recurrent malignant glioma and to compare the different measures of tumor size used in these current response assessment protocols. METHODS: Volumetric, bidimensional, and unidimensional measurements of tumor size were made using baseline contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images of 70 patients with recurrent malignant glioma receiving intravenous chemotherapy. Cox's proportional hazards model was used to investigate the prognostic importance of tumor size using survival as the end point. Further statistical analysis was undertaken to investigate the relationship between the different measurement techniques. RESULTS: Only the volumetric measurement of tumor size was found to be predictive of survival in recurrent malignant glioma on both univariate and multivariate analysis. Furthermore, analysis demonstrated that the unidimensional and bidimensional measures of tumor were not comparable with the more accurate and direct volumetric measurement. CONCLUSION: Indirect unidimensional and bidimensional measurement techniques do not have a significant association with overall survival or adequately assess tumor size in recurrent malignant glioma. These findings have serious implications about the validity of using current response assessment protocols in therapy trials for recurrent malignant glioma.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Tumor "size" is used internationally as a surrogate marker for overall survival when following current response assessment protocols (World Health Organization and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). With little evidence of a relationship between tumor "size" and survival in intrinsic brain tumors, this study was undertaken to investigate the predictive value of MR imaging-defined tumor size for survival in patients with recurrent malignant glioma and to compare the different measures of tumor size used in these current response assessment protocols. METHODS: Volumetric, bidimensional, and unidimensional measurements of tumor size were made using baseline contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images of 70 patients with recurrent malignant glioma receiving intravenous chemotherapy. Cox's proportional hazards model was used to investigate the prognostic importance of tumor size using survival as the end point. Further statistical analysis was undertaken to investigate the relationship between the different measurement techniques. RESULTS: Only the volumetric measurement of tumor size was found to be predictive of survival in recurrent malignant glioma on both univariate and multivariate analysis. Furthermore, analysis demonstrated that the unidimensional and bidimensional measures of tumor were not comparable with the more accurate and direct volumetric measurement. CONCLUSION: Indirect unidimensional and bidimensional measurement techniques do not have a significant association with overall survival or adequately assess tumor size in recurrent malignant glioma. These findings have serious implications about the validity of using current response assessment protocols in therapy trials for recurrent malignant glioma.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Benjamin M Ellingson; Martin Bendszus; Jerrold Boxerman; Daniel Barboriak; Bradley J Erickson; Marion Smits; Sarah J Nelson; Elizabeth Gerstner; Brian Alexander; Gregory Goldmacher; Wolfgang Wick; Michael Vogelbaum; Michael Weller; Evanthia Galanis; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Lalitha Shankar; Paula Jacobs; Whitney B Pope; Dewen Yang; Caroline Chung; Michael V Knopp; Soonme Cha; Martin J van den Bent; Susan Chang; W K Al Yung; Timothy F Cloughesy; Patrick Y Wen; Mark R Gilbert Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Ranjodh Singh; Zhiping Zhou; Jamie Tisnado; Sofia Haque; Kyung K Peck; Robert J Young; Apostolos John Tsiouris; Sunitha B Thakur; Mark M Souweidane Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Jasmin Jo; Brian Williams; Mark Smolkin; Max Wintermark; Mark E Shaffrey; M Beatriz Lopes; David Schiff Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2014-07-20 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Thomas C Kwee; Craig J Galbán; Christina Tsien; Larry Junck; Pia C Sundgren; Marko K Ivancevic; Timothy D Johnson; Charles R Meyer; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.044