PURPOSE: We use changes in tumor measurements to assess response and progression, both in routine care and as the primary objective of clinical trials. However, the variability of computed tomography (CT) -based tumor measurement has not been comprehensively evaluated. In this study, we assess the variability of lung tumor measurement using repeat CT scans performed within 15 minutes of each other and discuss the implications of this variability in a clinical context. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer and a target lung lesion ≥ 1 cm consented to undergo two CT scans within a period of minutes. Three experienced radiologists measured the diameter of the target lesion on the two scans in a side-by-side fashion, and differences were compared. RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent of changes exceeded 1 mm in magnitude, and 33% of changes exceeded 2 mm. Median increase and decrease in tumor measurements were +4.3% and -4.2%, respectively, and ranged from 23% shrinkage to 31% growth. Measurement changes were within ± 10% for 84% of measurements, whereas 3% met criteria for progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; ≥ 20% increase). Smaller lesions had greater variability of percent measurement change (P = .005). CONCLUSION: Apparent changes in tumor diameter exceeding 1 to 2 mm are common on immediate reimaging. Increases and decreases less than 10% can be a result of the inherent variability of reimaging. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the significance of small changes in lesion size in the care of individual patients and in the interpretation of clinical trial results.
PURPOSE: We use changes in tumor measurements to assess response and progression, both in routine care and as the primary objective of clinical trials. However, the variability of computed tomography (CT) -based tumor measurement has not been comprehensively evaluated. In this study, we assess the variability of lung tumor measurement using repeat CT scans performed within 15 minutes of each other and discuss the implications of this variability in a clinical context. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer and a target lung lesion ≥ 1 cm consented to undergo two CT scans within a period of minutes. Three experienced radiologists measured the diameter of the target lesion on the two scans in a side-by-side fashion, and differences were compared. RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent of changes exceeded 1 mm in magnitude, and 33% of changes exceeded 2 mm. Median increase and decrease in tumor measurements were +4.3% and -4.2%, respectively, and ranged from 23% shrinkage to 31% growth. Measurement changes were within ± 10% for 84% of measurements, whereas 3% met criteria for progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; ≥ 20% increase). Smaller lesions had greater variability of percent measurement change (P = .005). CONCLUSION: Apparent changes in tumor diameter exceeding 1 to 2 mm are common on immediate reimaging. Increases and decreases less than 10% can be a result of the inherent variability of reimaging. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the significance of small changes in lesion size in the care of individual patients and in the interpretation of clinical trial results.
Authors: Dag Wormanns; Gerhard Kohl; Ernst Klotz; Anke Marheine; Florian Beyer; Walter Heindel; Stefan Diederich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-11-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lawrence R Goodman; Meltem Gulsun; Lacey Washington; Paul G Nagy; Kelly L Piacsek Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: P Thiesse; L Ollivier; D Di Stefano-Louineau; S Négrier; J Savary; K Pignard; C Lasset; B Escudier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Binsheng Zhao; Lawrence H Schwartz; Chaya S Moskowitz; Liang Wang; Michelle S Ginsberg; Cathleen A Cooper; Li Jiang; John P Kalaigian Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-01-28 Impact factor: 11.105
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
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
Authors: Samuel G Armato; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Heber MacMahon; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Hedy L Kindler; Masha Kocherginsky; Adam Starkey Journal: Med Phys Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Jeremy J Erasmus; Gregory W Gladish; Lyle Broemeling; Bradley S Sabloff; Mylene T Truong; Roy S Herbst; Reginald F Munden Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Chikako Suzuki; Lennart Blomqvist; Thomas Hatschek; Lena Carlsson; Zakaria Einbeigi; Barbro Linderholm; Birgitta Lindh; Niklas Loman; Martin Malmberg; Samuel Rotstein; Martin Söderberg; Marie Sundqvist; Thomas M Walz; Gunnar Aström; Hirofumi Fujii; Hans Jacobsson; Bengt Glimelius Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Binsheng Zhao; Yongqiang Tan; Daniel J Bell; Sarah E Marley; Pingzhen Guo; Helen Mann; Marietta L J Scott; Lawrence H Schwartz; Dana C Ghiorghiu Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Laurent Dercle; Lin Lu; Lawrence H Schwartz; Min Qian; Sabine Tejpar; Peter Eggleton; Binsheng Zhao; Hubert Piessevaux Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506