Literature DB >> 19095439

A simulation study to evaluate the impact of the number of lesions measured on response assessment.

Chaya S Moskowitz1, Xiaoyu Jia, Lawrence H Schwartz, Mithat Gönen.   

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether the number of lesions that are used to measure tumour burden affects response assessment and inter-rater variability. In order to accomplish this, a simulation study was conducted. Data were generated from a mixed-effects mixture model. Parameter values to input in the model were obtained from the analysis of real data. Response assessments based on 10, five, three, two and one lesion were evaluated. There was little difference between response assessments based on five lesions and response assessments based on 10 lesions. When fewer than five lesions were used to assess response, there were notable differences from the 10 lesion-based response assessment. Basing response assessment on a small number of lesions tends to overestimate response rates and leads to misclassification of patients' response status. Therefore, measuring five lesions per patient appears to sufficiently capture patients' response to therapy. Measuring fewer than five lesions results in the loss of information that may adversely affect clinical trial results as well as patient management.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19095439      PMCID: PMC2652848          DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.11.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials.

Authors:  R Simon
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1989-03

3.  Evaluation of tumor measurements in oncology: use of film-based and electronic techniques.

Authors:  L H Schwartz; M S Ginsberg; D DeCorato; L N Rothenberg; S Einstein; P Kijewski; D M Panicek
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements.

Authors:  K D Hopper; C J Kasales; M A Van Slyke; T A Schwartz; T R TenHave; J A Jozefiak
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Reporting results of cancer treatment.

Authors:  A B Miller; B Hoogstraten; M Staquet; A Winkler
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1981-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

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

Authors:  Lawrence H Schwartz; Madhu Mazumdar; Wendy Brown; Alex Smith; David M Panicek
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2003-10-01       Impact factor: 12.531

7.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

Authors:  E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 9.162

8.  Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria.

Authors:  Jan Bogaerts; Robert Ford; Dan Sargent; Lawrence H Schwartz; Larry Rubinstein; Denis Lacombe; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Jaap Verweij; Patrick Therasse
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 9.162

9.  Design of phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: application to a study of sorafenib and erlotinib in non small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Theodore G Karrison; Michael L Maitland; Walter M Stadler; Mark J Ratain
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-09-25       Impact factor: 13.506

  9 in total
  15 in total

1.  New Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: comparison with original RECIST and impact on assessment of tumor response to targeted therapy.

Authors:  Mizuki Nishino; David M Jackman; Hiroto Hatabu; Beow Y Yeap; Leigh-Anne Cioffredi; Jeffrey T Yap; Pasi A Jänne; Bruce E Johnson; Annick D Van den Abbeele
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Informatics methods to enable sharing of quantitative imaging research data.

Authors:  Mia A Levy; John B Freymann; Justin S Kirby; Andriy Fedorov; Fiona M Fennessy; Steven A Eschrich; Anders E Berglund; David A Fenstermacher; Yongqiang Tan; Xiaotao Guo; Thomas L Casavant; Bartley J Brown; Terry A Braun; Andre Dekker; Erik Roelofs; James M Mountz; Fernando Boada; Charles Laymon; Matt Oborski; Daniel L Rubin
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 2.546

3.  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

4.  Comparison of RECIST version 1.0 and 1.1 in assessment of tumor response by computed tomography in advanced gastric cancer.

Authors:  Gil-Su Jang; Min-Jeong Kim; Hong-Il Ha; Jung Han Kim; Hyeong Su Kim; Sung Bae Ju; Dae Young Zang
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.087

5.  Automated tracking of quantitative assessments of tumor burden in clinical trials.

Authors:  Daniel L Rubin; Debra Willrett; Martin J O'Connor; Cleber Hage; Camille Kurtz; Dilvan A Moreira
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 4.243

6.  Comparison of the diagnostic performance of response evaluation criteria in solid tumor 1.0 with response evaluation criteria in solid tumor 1.1 on MRI in advanced breast cancer response evaluation to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  Su Kyung Jeh; Sung Hun Kim; Bong Joo Kang
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 3.500

7.  Current and future trends in magnetic resonance imaging assessments of the response of breast tumors to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  Lori R Arlinghaus; Xia Li; Mia Levy; David Smith; E Brian Welch; John C Gore; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  J Oncol       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 4.375

8.  Comparison of the RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Cytotoxic Chemotherapy.

Authors:  Hyun Chang Choi; Jung Han Kim; Hyeong Su Kim; Soong Goo Jung; Sang Muk Hwang; Sung Bae Ju; Ik Yang
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 4.207

9.  The assessment of tumor response by measuring the single largest lesion per organ in metastatic tumors: a pooled analysis of previously reported data.

Authors:  Hyun Joo Jang; Ji Woong Cho; Bumjung Park; Hyun Chang Choi; Hyeong Su Kim; Jung Han Kim
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2015-01-05       Impact factor: 4.207

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.