OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to characterize the reproducibility of measurement for tumor volumes and their longest tumor diameters (LDs) and estimate the potential impact of using changes in tumor volumes instead of LDs as the basis for response assessments. METHODS: We studied patients with advanced lung cancer who have been observed longitudinally with x-ray computed tomography in a multinational trial. A total of 71 time points from 10 patients with 13 morphologically complex target lesions were analyzed. A total of 6461 volume measurements and their corresponding LDs were made by seven independent teams using their own work flows and image analysis tools. Interteam agreement and overall interrater concurrence were characterized. RESULTS: Interteam agreement between volume measurements was better than between LD measurements (ı = 0.945 vs 0.734, P = .005). The variability in determining the nadir was lower for volumes than for LDs (P = .005). Use of standard thresholds for the RECIST-based method and use of experimentally determined cutoffs for categorizing responses showed that volume measurements had a significantly greater sensitivity for detecting partial responses and disease progression. Earlier detection of progression would have led to earlier changes in patient management in most cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that measurement of changes in tumor volumes is adequately reproducible. Using tumor volumes as the basis for response assessments could have a positive impact on both patient management and clinical trials. More authoritative work to qualify or discard changes in volume as the basis for response assessments should proceed.
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to characterize the reproducibility of measurement for tumor volumes and their longest tumor diameters (LDs) and estimate the potential impact of using changes in tumor volumes instead of LDs as the basis for response assessments. METHODS: We studied patients with advanced lung cancer who have been observed longitudinally with x-ray computed tomography in a multinational trial. A total of 71 time points from 10 patients with 13 morphologically complex target lesions were analyzed. A total of 6461 volume measurements and their corresponding LDs were made by seven independent teams using their own work flows and image analysis tools. Interteam agreement and overall interrater concurrence were characterized. RESULTS: Interteam agreement between volume measurements was better than between LD measurements (ı = 0.945 vs 0.734, P = .005). The variability in determining the nadir was lower for volumes than for LDs (P = .005). Use of standard thresholds for the RECIST-based method and use of experimentally determined cutoffs for categorizing responses showed that volume measurements had a significantly greater sensitivity for detecting partial responses and disease progression. Earlier detection of progression would have led to earlier changes in patient management in most cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that measurement of changes in tumor volumes is adequately reproducible. Using tumor volumes as the basis for response assessments could have a positive impact on both patient management and clinical trials. More authoritative work to qualify or discard changes in volume as the basis for response assessments should proceed.
Authors: Andrew J Buckler; James L Mulshine; Ronald Gottlieb; Binsheng Zhao; P David Mozley; Lawrence Schwartz Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Chikako Suzuki; Hans Jacobsson; Thomas Hatschek; Michael R Torkzad; Katarina Bodén; Yvonne Eriksson-Alm; Elisabeth Berg; Hirofumi Fujii; Atsushi Kubo; Lennart Blomqvist Journal: Radiographics Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Ying Wang; Rob J van Klaveren; Hester J van der Zaag-Loonen; Geertruida H de Bock; Hester A Gietema; Dong Ming Xu; Anne L M Leusveld; Harry J de Koning; Ernst T Scholten; Johny Verschakelen; Mathias Prokop; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; Adrian G Sacher; Leena Gandhi; Zhao Chen; Esra Akbay; Andriy Fedorov; Carl F Westin; Hiroto Hatabu; Bruce E Johnson; Peter Hammerman; Kwok-Kin Wong Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-12-26 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Maryam Aghighi; Justin Boe; Jarrett Rosenberg; Rie Von Eyben; Rakhee S Gawande; Philippe Petit; Tarsheen K Sethi; Jeremy Sharib; Neyssa M Marina; Steven G DuBois; Heike E Daldrup-Link Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anthony F Shields; Paula M Jacobs; Mario Sznol; Michael M Graham; Ron N Germain; Lawrence G Lum; Elizabeth M Jaffee; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Sridhar Nimmagadda; Annick D Van den Abbeele; David K Leung; Anna M Wu; Elad Sharon; Lalitha K Shankar Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Pooja J Sheth; Spencer Del Moral; Breelyn A Wilky; Jonathan C Trent; Jonathan Cohen; Andrew E Rosenberg; H Thomas Temple; Ty K Subhawong Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; Suzanne E Dahlberg; Linnea E Fulton; Subba R Digumarthy; Hiroto Hatabu; Bruce E Johnson; Lecia V Sequist Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 3.173