INTRODUCTION: Change in tumor size is a frequent endpoint in cancer clinical trials, but whether change in size should be measured using volume on two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) images is not certain. We compared volumetric measurements on post-contrast 2D and high-resolution 3D T1-weighted MR images (T1WI) in evaluating tumor response in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). METHODS: Tumor volume measurements were performed on 86 MRI studies from 37 adult patients with GBM on post-contrast 5 mm 2D T1WI and isotropic high-resolution T1WI. The means of the two volumes were compared and their association was analyzed. RESULTS: There is no significant difference between volumes measured on 2D and 3D in 86 scans (Z = 0.63, p = 0.53), and a high correlation was revealed between them (r = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.93-0.97, p < 0.001). When the percentage changes were categorized into traditional tumor response criteria (complete response/partial response/stable disease/progressive disease), the kappa coefficient between the volume on 2D and volume on 3D was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.57-1.03, p < 0.05) with an overall agreement of 84%. CONCLUSIONS: Volume on post-contrast 2D T1WI appears comparable to volume on 3D T1WI and should be a practical alternative to volume on 3D in evaluating tumor response.
INTRODUCTION: Change in tumor size is a frequent endpoint in cancer clinical trials, but whether change in size should be measured using volume on two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) images is not certain. We compared volumetric measurements on post-contrast 2D and high-resolution 3D T1-weighted MR images (T1WI) in evaluating tumor response in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). METHODS:Tumor volume measurements were performed on 86 MRI studies from 37 adult patients with GBM on post-contrast 5 mm 2D T1WI and isotropic high-resolution T1WI. The means of the two volumes were compared and their association was analyzed. RESULTS: There is no significant difference between volumes measured on 2D and 3D in 86 scans (Z = 0.63, p = 0.53), and a high correlation was revealed between them (r = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.93-0.97, p < 0.001). When the percentage changes were categorized into traditional tumor response criteria (complete response/partial response/stable disease/progressive disease), the kappa coefficient between the volume on 2D and volume on 3D was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.57-1.03, p < 0.05) with an overall agreement of 84%. CONCLUSIONS: Volume on post-contrast 2D T1WI appears comparable to volume on 3D T1WI and should be a practical alternative to volume on 3D in evaluating tumor response.
Authors: A G Sorensen; S Patel; C Harmath; S Bridges; J Synnott; A Sievers; Y H Yoon; E J Lee; M C Yang; R F Lewis; G J Harris; M Lev; P W Schaefer; B R Buchbinder; G Barest; K Yamada; J Ponzo; H Y Kwon; J Gemmete; J Farkas; A L Tievsky; R B Ziegler; M R Salhus; R Weisskoff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
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: K D Hopper; C J Kasales; K D Eggli; T R TenHave; N M Belman; P S Potok; M A Van Slyke; G J Olt; P Close; A Lipton; H A Harvey; J S Hartzel Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1996 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Rebecca A Packer; John H Rossmeisl; Michael S Kent; John F Griffin; Christina Mazcko; Amy K LeBlanc Journal: Vet Radiol Ultrasound Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 1.363
Authors: Geir Andre Ringstad; Kyrre Eeg Emblem; Dominic Holland; Anders M Dale; Atle Bjornerud; John K Hald Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Thomas Huber; Georgina Alber; Stefanie Bette; Johannes Kaesmacher; Tobias Boeckh-Behrens; Jens Gempt; Florian Ringel; Hanno M Specht; Bernhard Meyer; Claus Zimmer; Benedikt Wiestler; Jan S Kirschke Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Clara Le Fèvre; Roger Sun; Hélène Cebula; Alicia Thiery; Delphine Antoni; Roland Schott; François Proust; Jean-Marc Constans; Georges Noël Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 4.996