Literature DB >> 20489085

Morphology, Attenuation, Size, and Structure (MASS) criteria: assessing response and predicting clinical outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma on antiangiogenic targeted therapy.

Andrew Dennis Smith1, Shetal N Shah, Brian I Rini, Michael L Lieber, Erick M Remer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate response assessment and predict clinical outcome in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) receiving antiangiogenic targeted therapy. Target lesions were assessed on routine contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) images obtained during the portal venous phase using new response criteria.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standard CECT examinations of patients with metastatic clear cell RCC on first-line sunitinib or sorafenib therapy (n = 84) were retrospectively evaluated using Mass, Attenuation, Size, and Structure (MASS) Criteria; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST); Size and Attenuation CT (SACT) Criteria; and modified Choi Criteria. The objective response to therapy was compared with clinical outcomes including time to progression (TTP) and disease-specific survival. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival functions.
RESULTS: A favorable response according to MASS Criteria had a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 100% in identifying patients with a good clinical outcome (i.e., progression-free survival of > 250 days) versus 17% and 100%, respectively, for RECIST partial response. The objective categories of response used by MASS Criteria-favorable response, indeterminate response, and unfavorable response-differed significantly from one another with respect to TTP (p < 0.0001, log-rank test) and disease-specific survival (p < 0.0001, log-rank test).
CONCLUSION: Assessment of metastatic RCC target lesions on CECT for changes in morphology, attenuation, size, and structure by MASS Criteria is more accurate than response assessment by SACT Criteria, RECIST, or modified Choi Criteria. Furthermore, the use of MASS Criteria for imaging response assessment showed high interobserver agreement and may predict disease outcome in patients with metastatic RCC on targeted therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20489085     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.3456

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  82 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of treatment response in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: role of state-of-the-art cross-sectional imaging.

Authors:  Venkata S Katabathina; Nathalie Lassau; Ivan Pedrosa; Chaan S Ng; Srinivasa R Prasad
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Dual-energy computed tomography applications in uroradiology.

Authors:  Jong Park; Hersh Chandarana; Michael Macari; Alec J Megibow
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Kidney cancer: MASS criteria predict good clinical outcome.

Authors:  Sarah Payton
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 4.  Imaging-based tumor treatment response evaluation: review of conventional, new, and emerging concepts.

Authors:  Hee Kang; Ho Yun Lee; Kyung Soo Lee; Jae-Hun Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2012-06-18       Impact factor: 3.500

5.  mTOR-inhibitor treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: contribution of Choi and modified Choi criteria assessed in 2D or 3D to evaluate tumor response.

Authors:  M Lamuraglia; S Raslan; R Elaidi; S Oudard; B Escudier; K Slimane; R Renard Penna; M Wagner; O Lucidarme
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  Computerized PET/CT image analysis in the evaluation of tumour response to therapy.

Authors:  W Lu; J Wang; H H Zhang
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival with targeted and standard therapies in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: US Food and Drug Administration trial-level and patient-level analyses.

Authors:  Gideon M Blumenthal; Stella W Karuri; Hui Zhang; Lijun Zhang; Sean Khozin; Dickran Kazandjian; Shenghui Tang; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Patricia Keegan; Richard Pazdur
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-02-09       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 8.  [Oncological imaging for therapy response assessment].

Authors:  J Stattaus
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 9.  The role of functional imaging in the era of targeted therapy of renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Margarita Braunagel; Anno Graser; Maximilian Reiser; Mike Notohamiprodjo
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 10.  Volumetric analysis at abdominal CT: oncologic and non-oncologic applications.

Authors:  Virginia B Planz; Meghan G Lubner; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.