OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the agreement between tumour volume derived from semiautomated volumetry (SaV) and tumor volume defined by spherical volume using longest lesion diameter (LD) according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) or ellipsoid volume using LD and longest orthogonal diameter (LOD) according to World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Twenty patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from the CIOX trial were included. A total of 151 target lesions were defined by baseline computed tomography and followed until disease progression. All assessments were performed by a single reader. A variance component model was used to compare the three volume versions. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the SaV and RECIST-based tumour volumes. The same model showed no significant difference between the SaV and WHO-based volumes. Scatter plots showed that the RECIST-based volumes overestimate lesion volume. The agreement between the SaV and WHO-based relative changes in tumour volume, evaluated by intraclass correlation, showed nearly perfect agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Estimating the volume of metastatic lesions using both the LD and LOD (WHO) is more accurate than those based on LD only (RECIST), which overestimates lesion volume. The good agreement between the SaV and WHO-based relative changes in tumour volume enables a reasonable approximation of three-dimensional tumour burden. KEY POINTS: • Tumour response in patients undergoingchemotherapy is assessed using CT images • Measurements are based on RECIST (unidimensional)-based or WHO (bidimensional)-based criteria • We calculated tumour volume from bidimensional target lesion measurements • This formula provides good tumour volume approximation, based on semiautomated volumetry.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the agreement between tumour volume derived from semiautomated volumetry (SaV) and tumor volume defined by spherical volume using longest lesion diameter (LD) according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) or ellipsoid volume using LD and longest orthogonal diameter (LOD) according to World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from the CIOX trial were included. A total of 151 target lesions were defined by baseline computed tomography and followed until disease progression. All assessments were performed by a single reader. A variance component model was used to compare the three volume versions. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the SaV and RECIST-based tumour volumes. The same model showed no significant difference between the SaV and WHO-based volumes. Scatter plots showed that the RECIST-based volumes overestimate lesion volume. The agreement between the SaV and WHO-based relative changes in tumour volume, evaluated by intraclass correlation, showed nearly perfect agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Estimating the volume of metastatic lesions using both the LD and LOD (WHO) is more accurate than those based on LD only (RECIST), which overestimates lesion volume. The good agreement between the SaV and WHO-based relative changes in tumour volume enables a reasonable approximation of three-dimensional tumour burden. KEY POINTS: • Tumour response in patients undergoing chemotherapy is assessed using CT images • Measurements are based on RECIST (unidimensional)-based or WHO (bidimensional)-based criteria • We calculated tumour volume from bidimensional target lesion measurements • This formula provides good tumour volume approximation, based on semiautomated volumetry.
Authors: Binsheng Zhao; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Chaya S Moskowitz; Mark G Kris; William Pao; Pingzhen Guo; Valerie M Rusch; Marc Ladanyi; Naiyer A Rizvi; Lawrence H Schwartz Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Michael Fabel; H Bolte; H von Tengg-Kobligk; L Bornemann; V Dicken; S Delorme; H-U Kauczor; M Heller; J Biederer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-10-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nicolas Moosmann; Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal; Ursula Vehling-Kaiser; Martina Stauch; Holger G Hass; Herrmann Dietzfelbinger; Daniel Oruzio; Stefan Klein; Klaus Zellmann; Thomas Decker; Mathias Schulze; Wolfgang Abenhardt; Gerhard Puchtler; Herbert Kappauf; Johann Mittermüller; Christopher Haberl; Andreas Schalhorn; Andreas Jung; Sebastian Stintzing; Volker Heinemann Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-02-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Fabel; H von Tengg-Kobligk; F L Giesel; L Bornemann; V Dicken; A Kopp-Schneider; C Moser; S Delorme; H-U Kauczor Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Giorgio Ercolani; Gian Luca Grazi; Matteo Ravaioli; Matteo Cescon; Andrea Gardini; Giovanni Varotti; Massimo Del Gaudio; Bruno Nardo; Antonino Cavallari Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2002-10
Authors: Erin L Symonds; Susanne K Pedersen; Bernita Yeo; Hiba Al Naji; Susan E Byrne; Amitesh Roy; Graeme P Young Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 7.449