Literature DB >> 16533757

Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: measurement by RECIST, two-dimensional, computer-assisted tumor area, and computer-assisted tumor volume methods.

Evanthia Galanis1, Jan C Buckner, Matthew J Maurer, Rene Sykora, René Castillo, Karla V Ballman, Bradley J Erickson.   

Abstract

Significant limitations are associated with the use of standard radiographic measurements as indicators of response in glioma therapy trials. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were recently introduced in an attempt to standardize and simplify assessment of response to treatment in cancer clinical trials. However, their applicability in gliomas has been assessed in only a very small number of patients. Our aim was to validate radiographic response assessment in newly diagnosed glioma patients. Sixty-seven newly diagnosed glioma patients participating in nine North Central Cancer Treatment Group glioma trials were included; 565 MRI scans were analyzed. All scans were performed with the same technique. Kappa statistics were calculated to determine agreement between assessment methods. Cox proportional hazards analyses and time-dependent Cox models were used to assess the association between different measurement methods and overall survival. Results showed agreement between the one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) measurements both for T2 images and for gadolinium-enhanced images. Comparison of duration of response and time to progression as assessed by eight different methods showed similarity in response assessments by 1D, 2D, area, and volume gadolinium measurements. In contrast, time to progression was significantly shorter when assessed by 1D-T2 or 2D-T2 images as compared to area-T2 or volume-T2 images. This set of data indicates that RECIST could be used instead of 2D imaging for response assessment in newly diagnosed glioma trials. Overall, responses as determined by any tumor measurement method did not correlate with patient survival for either enhancing or nonenhancing tumors, although the small number of responders limits definitive conclusions. Time-dependent Cox models demonstrated that, in contrast to the case of nonenhancing tumors, progression as determined by 1D, 2D, area, and volume measurements in gadolinium-enhanced images was predictive of survival of patients with enhancing tumors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16533757      PMCID: PMC1871930          DOI: 10.1215/15228517-2005-005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuro Oncol        ISSN: 1522-8517            Impact factor:   12.300


  23 in total

1.  Commentary. Are current tumour response criteria relevant for the 21st century?

Authors:  A R Padhani; J E Husband
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  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.

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

Review 3.  Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST): problems and need for modifications in paediatric oncology?

Authors:  K McHugh; S Kao
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit.

Authors:  J Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1968-10       Impact factor: 17.737

5.  Response and progression in recurrent malignant glioma.

Authors:  K R Hess; E T Wong; K A Jaeckle; A P Kyritsis; V A Levin; M D Prados; W K Yung
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 12.300

6.  Comparison of one-, two-, and three-dimensional measurements of childhood brain tumors.

Authors:  K E Warren; N Patronas; A A Aikin; P S Albert; F M Balis
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-09-19       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 7.  Measuring the clinical response. What does it mean?

Authors:  P Therasse
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 9.162

8.  Thallium-201 single-photon emission computed tomography as an early predictor of outcome in recurrent glioma.

Authors:  Maaike J Vos; Otto S Hoekstra; Frederik Barkhof; Johannes Berkhof; Jan J Heimans; Cees J van Groeningen; W Peter Vandertop; Ben J Slotman; Tjeerd J Postma
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-08-11       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Radiological measurement of breast cancer metastases to lung and liver: comparison between WHO (bidimensional) and RECIST (unidimensional) guidelines.

Authors:  Srinivasa R Prasad; Sanjay Saini; James E Sumner; Peter F Hahn; Dushyant Sahani; Giles W Boland
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.826

10.  Measuring response in solid tumors: comparison of RECIST and WHO response criteria.

Authors:  Joon Oh Park; Soon Il Lee; Seo Young Song; Kihyun Kim; Won Seog Kim; Chul Won Jung; Young Suk Park; Young-Hyuk Im; Won Ki Kang; Mark Hong Lee; Kyung Soo Lee; Keunchil Park
Journal:  Jpn J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.019

View more
  58 in total

Review 1.  Multicentre imaging measurements for oncology and in the brain.

Authors:  P S Tofts; D J Collins
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Consensus recommendations for a standardized Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol in clinical trials.

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

Review 3.  Image-based biomarkers for solid tumor quantification.

Authors:  Peter Savadjiev; Jaron Chong; Anthony Dohan; Vincent Agnus; Reza Forghani; Caroline Reinhold; Benoit Gallix
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Evaluation of low-grade glioma structural changes after chemotherapy using DTI-based histogram analysis and functional diffusion maps.

Authors:  Antonella Castellano; Marina Donativi; Roberta Rudà; Giorgio De Nunzio; Marco Riva; Antonella Iadanza; Luca Bertero; Matteo Rucco; Lorenzo Bello; Riccardo Soffietti; Andrea Falini
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-08-30       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Tumor Response Assessment in Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma: Comparison of Semiautomated Volumetric, Semiautomated Linear, and Manual Linear Tumor Measurement Strategies.

Authors:  L A Gilligan; M D DeWire-Schottmiller; M Fouladi; P DeBlank; J L Leach
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2020-04-30       Impact factor: 3.825

6.  Semi-automatic segmentation software for quantitative clinical brain glioblastoma evaluation.

Authors:  Ying Zhu; Geoffrey S Young; Zhong Xue; Raymond Y Huang; Hui You; Kian Setayesh; Hiroto Hatabu; Fei Cao; Stephen T Wong
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 7.  Brain tumor imaging in clinical trials.

Authors:  J W Henson; S Ulmer; G J Harris
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2008-02-13       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 8.  Treatment-related changes in glioblastoma: a review on the controversies in response assessment criteria and the concepts of true progression, pseudoprogression, pseudoresponse and radionecrosis.

Authors:  P D Delgado-López; E Riñones-Mena; E M Corrales-García
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 9.  Invited review--neuroimaging response assessment criteria for brain tumors in veterinary patients.

Authors:  John H Rossmeisl; Paulo A Garcia; Gregory B Daniel; John Daniel Bourland; Waldemar Debinski; Nikolaos Dervisis; Shawna Klahn
Journal:  Vet Radiol Ultrasound       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 1.363

10.  Time course of imaging changes of GBM during extended bevacizumab treatment.

Authors:  Suchitra Ananthnarayan; Jennie Bahng; James Roring; Phioanh Nghiemphu; Albert Lai; Timothy Cloughesy; Whitney B Pope
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2008-04-04       Impact factor: 4.130

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.