M Nishino1, D M Jackman2, P J DiPiro3, H Hatabu3, P A Jänne2, B E Johnson2. 1. Department of Radiology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, 450 Brookline Ave., 75 Francis St., Boston, MA 02215, USA. Electronic address: Mizuki_Nishino@dfci.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Medical Oncology and Department of Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, 450 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA 02215, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, 450 Brookline Ave., 75 Francis St., Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To revisit the presumed relationship between tumour diameter and volume in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, and determine whether the measured volume using volume-analysis software and its proportional changes during therapy matches with the calculated volume obtained from the presumed relationship and results in concordant response assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC with a total of 53 measurable lung lesions, treated in a phase II trial of erlotinib, were studied with institutional review board approval. Tumour volume and diameter were measured at baseline and at the first follow-up computed tomography (CT) examination using volume-analysis software. Using the measured diameter (2r) and the equation, calculated volume was obtained as (4/3)πr(3) at baseline and at the follow-up. Percent volume change was obtained by comparing to baseline for measured and calculated volumes, and response assessment was assigned. RESULTS: The measured volume was significantly smaller than the calculated volume at baseline (median 11,488.9 mm(3) versus 17,148.6 mm(3); p < 0.0001), with a concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) of 0.7022. At follow-up, the measured volume was once again significantly smaller than the calculated volume (median 6573.5 mm(3) versus 9198.1 mm(3); p = 0.0022), with a CCC of 0.7408. Response assessment by calculated versus measured volume changes had only moderate agreement (weighted κ = 0.545), with discordant assessment results in 20% (8/40) of lesions. CONCLUSION: Calculated volume based on the presumed relationship significantly differed from the measured volume in advanced NSCLC patients, with only moderate concordance in response assessment, indicating the limitations of presumed relationship.
AIM: To revisit the presumed relationship between tumour diameter and volume in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, and determine whether the measured volume using volume-analysis software and its proportional changes during therapy matches with the calculated volume obtained from the presumed relationship and results in concordant response assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC with a total of 53 measurable lung lesions, treated in a phase II trial of erlotinib, were studied with institutional review board approval. Tumour volume and diameter were measured at baseline and at the first follow-up computed tomography (CT) examination using volume-analysis software. Using the measured diameter (2r) and the equation, calculated volume was obtained as (4/3)πr(3) at baseline and at the follow-up. Percent volume change was obtained by comparing to baseline for measured and calculated volumes, and response assessment was assigned. RESULTS: The measured volume was significantly smaller than the calculated volume at baseline (median 11,488.9 mm(3) versus 17,148.6 mm(3); p < 0.0001), with a concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) of 0.7022. At follow-up, the measured volume was once again significantly smaller than the calculated volume (median 6573.5 mm(3) versus 9198.1 mm(3); p = 0.0022), with a CCC of 0.7408. Response assessment by calculated versus measured volume changes had only moderate agreement (weighted κ = 0.545), with discordant assessment results in 20% (8/40) of lesions. CONCLUSION: Calculated volume based on the presumed relationship significantly differed from the measured volume in advanced NSCLCpatients, with only moderate concordance in response assessment, indicating the limitations of presumed relationship.
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: 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: Mizuki Nishino; David M Jackman; Hiroto Hatabu; Beow Y Yeap; Leigh-Anne Cioffredi; Jeffrey T Yap; Pasi A Jänne; Bruce E Johnson; Annick D Van den Abbeele Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; Mengye Guo; David M Jackman; Pamela J DiPiro; Jeffrey T Yap; Tak K Ho; Hiroto Hatabu; Pasi A Jänne; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Bruce E Johnson Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-10-30 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Binsheng Zhao; Leonard P James; Chaya S Moskowitz; Pingzhen Guo; Michelle S Ginsberg; Robert A Lefkowitz; Yilin Qin; Gregory J Riely; Mark G Kris; Lawrence H Schwartz Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: P David Mozley; Claus Bendtsen; Binsheng Zhao; Lawrence H Schwartz; Matthias Thorn; Yuanxin Rong; Luduan Zhang; Andrea Perrone; René Korn; Andrew J Buckler Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
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: Mizuki Nishino; Tomoyuki Hida; Sasha Kravets; Suzanne E Dahlberg; Christine A Lydon; Hiroto Hatabu; Bruce E Johnson; Mark M Awad Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2020-01-28
Authors: S C Brandelik; J Krzykalla; T Hielscher; J Hillengass; J K Kloth; H U Kauczor; M A Weber Journal: Radiologe Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 0.635
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
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; Junwei Lu; Takuya Hino; Natalie I Vokes; Pasi A Jänne; Hiroto Hatabu; Bruce E Johnson Journal: J Thorac Imaging Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Markus Wennmann; Laurent Kintzelé; Marie Piraud; Bjoern H Menze; Thomas Hielscher; Johannes Hofmanninger; Barbara Wagner; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Maximilian Merz; Jens Hillengass; Georg Langs; Marc-André Weber Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-05-18