INTRODUCTION: To compare dynamic volume perfusion computed tomography (dVPCT) parameters with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1) for prediction of therapy response and overall survival (OS) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients treated with conventional chemotherapy. METHODS: A total of 173 lung cancer patients (131 men; 61 ± 10 years) undergoing dVPCT before (T1) and after chemotherapy (T2) and follow-up were prospectively included. dVPCT-derived blood flow, blood volume, mean transit time, and permeability (PERM) were assessed, compared between NSCLC and SCLC and patients' response to therapy was determined according to RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: One hundred of one hundred and seventy-three patients underwent dVPCT at T1 and T2 within a median of 44 (range, 31-108) days. dVPCT values were differing in NSCLC and SCLC, but were not significantly differing between patients with partial response, stable, or progressive disease. Eighty-five patients (NSCLC = 72 and SCLC = 13) with a follow-up for greater than or equal to 6 months were analyzed for OS. Fifty-six of eighty-five patients died during follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic analysis determined T1/T2 with highest predictive values regarding OS for blood flow, blood volume, mean transit time, and permeability (area under the curve: 0.53, 0.61, 0.54, and 0.53, respectively, all p > 0.05). Kaplan-Meier statistics revealed OS of patient groups assigned according to dVPCT T1/T2 cutoff values was not differing for neither dVPCT parameter, whereas RECIST groups significantly differed in OS (p = 0.02). Cox proportional hazards regression determined progressive disease status to independently predict OS (p = 0.004), while none of the dVPCT parameters did so. CONCLUSIONS: dVPCT values, differ between NSCLC and SCLC, are not related to RECIST 1.1 classification and do not improve OS prediction in lung cancer patients treated with conventional chemotherapy.
INTRODUCTION: To compare dynamic volume perfusion computed tomography (dVPCT) parameters with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1) for prediction of therapy response and overall survival (OS) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients treated with conventional chemotherapy. METHODS: A total of 173 lung cancerpatients (131 men; 61 ± 10 years) undergoing dVPCT before (T1) and after chemotherapy (T2) and follow-up were prospectively included. dVPCT-derived blood flow, blood volume, mean transit time, and permeability (PERM) were assessed, compared between NSCLC and SCLC and patients' response to therapy was determined according to RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: One hundred of one hundred and seventy-three patients underwent dVPCT at T1 and T2 within a median of 44 (range, 31-108) days. dVPCT values were differing in NSCLC and SCLC, but were not significantly differing between patients with partial response, stable, or progressive disease. Eighty-five patients (NSCLC = 72 and SCLC = 13) with a follow-up for greater than or equal to 6 months were analyzed for OS. Fifty-six of eighty-five patients died during follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic analysis determined T1/T2 with highest predictive values regarding OS for blood flow, blood volume, mean transit time, and permeability (area under the curve: 0.53, 0.61, 0.54, and 0.53, respectively, all p > 0.05). Kaplan-Meier statistics revealed OS of patient groups assigned according to dVPCT T1/T2 cutoff values was not differing for neither dVPCT parameter, whereas RECIST groups significantly differed in OS (p = 0.02). Cox proportional hazards regression determined progressive disease status to independently predict OS (p = 0.004), while none of the dVPCT parameters did so. CONCLUSIONS: dVPCT values, differ between NSCLC and SCLC, are not related to RECIST 1.1 classification and do not improve OS prediction in lung cancerpatients treated with conventional chemotherapy.
Authors: Chunxia Su; Mathias Meyer; Robert Pirker; Wieland Voigt; Jingyun Shi; Lothar Pilz; Rudolf M Huber; Yilong Wu; Jinghong Wang; Yonglan He; Xuan Wang; Jian Zhang; Xiuyi Zhi; Meiqi Shi; Bo Zhu; Stefan S Schoenberg; Thomas Henzler; Christian Manegold; Caicun Zhou; Eric Dominic Roessner Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2016-08
Authors: Eyjolfur Gudmundsson; Zacariah Labby; Christopher M Straus; William F Sensakovic; Feng Li; Buerkley Rose; Alexandra Cunliffe; Hedy L Kindler; Samuel G Armato Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Louise S Strauch; Rie Ø Eriksen; Michael Sandgaard; Thomas S Kristensen; Michael B Nielsen; Carsten A Lauridsen Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2016-07-21
Authors: Carmen Trinidad López; Javier De La Fuente Aguado; Roque Oca Pernas; Carlos Delgado Sánchez-Gracián; Eloisa Santos Armentia; Antonio Vaamonde Liste; Raquel Prada González; Miguel Souto Bayarri Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2019-06-13
Authors: Wouter van Elmpt; Catharina M L Zegers; Bart Reymen; Aniek J G Even; Anne-Marie C Dingemans; Michel Oellers; Joachim E Wildberger; Felix M Mottaghy; Marco Das; Esther G C Troost; Philippe Lambin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 9.236