PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to demonstrate intraobserver/interobserver reproducibility for novel semiautomated measurements of hepatic volume used for Yttrium-90 dose calculations as well as whole-liver and necrotic-liver (hypodense/nonenhancing) tumor volume after radioembolization. The secondary aim was to provide initial comparisons of tumor volumetric measurements with linear measurements, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, and survival outcomes. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2009, 23 consecutive radioembolization procedures were performed for 14 cases of hepatocellular carcinoma and 9 cases of hepatic metastases. Baseline and follow-up computed tomography obtained 1 month after treatment were retrospectively analyzed. Three observers measured liver, whole-tumor, and tumor-necrosis volumes twice using semiautomated software. RESULTS: Good intraobserver/interobserver reproducibility was demonstrated (intraclass correlation [ICC] > 0.9) for tumor and liver volumes. Semiautomated measurements of liver volumes were statistically similar to those obtained with manual tracing (ICC = 0.868), but they required significantly less time to perform (p < 0.0001, ICC = 0.088). There was a positive association between change in linear tumor measurements and whole-tumor volume (p < 0.0001). However, linear measurements did not correlate with volume of necrosis (p > 0.05). Dose, change in tumor diameters, tumor volume, and necrotic volume did not correlate with survival (p > 0.05 in all instances). However, Kaplan-Meier curves suggest that a >10% increase in necrotic volume correlated with survival (p = 0.0472). CONCLUSION: Semiautomated volumetric analysis of liver, whole-tumor, and tumor-necrosis volume can be performed with good intraobserver/interobserver reproducibility. In this small retrospective study, measurements of tumor necrosis were suggested to correlate with survival.
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to demonstrate intraobserver/interobserver reproducibility for novel semiautomated measurements of hepatic volume used for Yttrium-90 dose calculations as well as whole-liver and necrotic-liver (hypodense/nonenhancing) tumor volume after radioembolization. The secondary aim was to provide initial comparisons of tumor volumetric measurements with linear measurements, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, and survival outcomes. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2009, 23 consecutive radioembolization procedures were performed for 14 cases of hepatocellular carcinoma and 9 cases of hepatic metastases. Baseline and follow-up computed tomography obtained 1 month after treatment were retrospectively analyzed. Three observers measured liver, whole-tumor, and tumor-necrosis volumes twice using semiautomated software. RESULTS: Good intraobserver/interobserver reproducibility was demonstrated (intraclass correlation [ICC] > 0.9) for tumor and liver volumes. Semiautomated measurements of liver volumes were statistically similar to those obtained with manual tracing (ICC = 0.868), but they required significantly less time to perform (p < 0.0001, ICC = 0.088). There was a positive association between change in linear tumor measurements and whole-tumor volume (p < 0.0001). However, linear measurements did not correlate with volume of necrosis (p > 0.05). Dose, change in tumor diameters, tumor volume, and necrotic volume did not correlate with survival (p > 0.05 in all instances). However, Kaplan-Meier curves suggest that a >10% increase in necrotic volume correlated with survival (p = 0.0472). CONCLUSION: Semiautomated volumetric analysis of liver, whole-tumor, and tumor-necrosis volume can be performed with good intraobserver/interobserver reproducibility. In this small retrospective study, measurements of tumor necrosis were suggested to correlate with survival.
Authors: Binsheng Zhao; Lawrence H Schwartz; Chaya S Moskowitz; Michelle S Ginsberg; Naiyer A Rizvi; Mark G Kris Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ihab R Kamel; David A Bluemke; John Eng; Eleni Liapi; Wells Messersmith; Diane K Reyes; Jean-Francois H Geschwind Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Laurent Hermoye; Ismael Laamari-Azjal; Zhujiang Cao; Laurence Annet; Jan Lerut; Benoit M Dawant; Bernard E Van Beers Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-11-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ihab R Kamel; Diane K Reyes; Eleni Liapi; David A Bluemke; Jean-Francois H Geschwind Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: D J Sargent; L Rubinstein; L Schwartz; J E Dancey; C Gatsonis; L E Dodd; L K Shankar Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Alejandro Forner; Carmen Ayuso; María Varela; Jordi Rimola; Amelia J Hessheimer; Carlos Rodriguez de Lope; María Reig; Luís Bianchi; Josep M Llovet; Jordi Bruix Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Wayne L Monsky; Bedro Jin; Chris Molloy; Robert J Canter; Chin Shang Li; Tzu C Lin; Daniel Borys; Walter Mack; Isaac Kim; Michael H Buonocore; Abhijit J Chaudhari Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: Stefano Colagrande; Andrea L Inghilesi; Sami Aburas; Gian G Taliani; Cosimo Nardi; Fabio Marra Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Nicolas Meyers; Alexandre Jadoul; Claire Bernard; Jean Delwaide; Anne Lamproye; Olivier Detry; Pierre Honoré; Laurent Gerard; Roland Hustinx Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2020-05-12