Milou H Martens1, Miriam M van Heeswijk2, Joris J van den Broek3, Sheng-Xiang Rao4, Vincent Vandecaveye5, Roy A Vliegen6, Wilhelmina H Schreurs3, Geerard L Beets7, Doenja M J Lambregts8, Regina G H Beets-Tan9. 1. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands; GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: mh.martens@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands; GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, Medical Center Alkmaar, Alkmaar, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 5. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 6. Department of Radiology, Atrium Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands; GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands; GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the available literature on tumor size/volume measurements on magnetic resonance imaging for response assessment after chemoradiotherapy, and validate these cut-offs in an independent multicenter patient cohort. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study included 2 parts. (1) Review of the literature: articles were included that assessed the accuracy of tumor size/volume measurements on magnetic resonance imaging for tumor response assessment. Size/volume cut-offs were extracted; (2) Multicenter validation: extracted cut-offs from the literature were tested in a multicenter cohort (n=146). Accuracies were calculated and compared with reported results from the literature. RESULTS: The review included 14 articles, in which 3 different measurement methods were assessed: (1) tumor length; (2) 3-dimensonial tumor size; and (3) whole volume. Study outcomes consisted of (1) complete response (ypT0) versus residual tumor; (2) tumor regression grade 1 to 2 versus 3 to 5; and (3) T-downstaging (ypT<cT). In the multicenter cohort, best results were obtained for the validation of the whole-volume measurements, in particular for the outcome ypT0 (accuracy 44%-80%), with the optimal cut-offs being 1.6 cm(3) (after chemoradiation therapy) and a volume reduction of Δ80% to 86.6%. Accuracies for whole-volume measurements to assess tumor regression grade 1 to 2 were 52% to 61%, and for T-downstaging 51% to 57%. Overall accuracies for tumor length ranged between 48% and 53% and for 3D size measurement between 52% and 56%. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance volumetry using whole-tumor volume measurements can be helpful in rectal cancer response assessment with selected cut-off values. Measurements of tumor length or 3-dimensional tumor size are not helpful. Magnetic resonance volumetry is mainly accurate to assess a complete tumor response (ypT0) after chemoradiation therapy (accuracies up to 80%).
PURPOSE: To review the available literature on tumor size/volume measurements on magnetic resonance imaging for response assessment after chemoradiotherapy, and validate these cut-offs in an independent multicenter patient cohort. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study included 2 parts. (1) Review of the literature: articles were included that assessed the accuracy of tumor size/volume measurements on magnetic resonance imaging for tumor response assessment. Size/volume cut-offs were extracted; (2) Multicenter validation: extracted cut-offs from the literature were tested in a multicenter cohort (n=146). Accuracies were calculated and compared with reported results from the literature. RESULTS: The review included 14 articles, in which 3 different measurement methods were assessed: (1) tumor length; (2) 3-dimensonial tumor size; and (3) whole volume. Study outcomes consisted of (1) complete response (ypT0) versus residual tumor; (2) tumor regression grade 1 to 2 versus 3 to 5; and (3) T-downstaging (ypT<cT). In the multicenter cohort, best results were obtained for the validation of the whole-volume measurements, in particular for the outcome ypT0 (accuracy 44%-80%), with the optimal cut-offs being 1.6 cm(3) (after chemoradiation therapy) and a volume reduction of Δ80% to 86.6%. Accuracies for whole-volume measurements to assess tumor regression grade 1 to 2 were 52% to 61%, and for T-downstaging 51% to 57%. Overall accuracies for tumor length ranged between 48% and 53% and for 3D size measurement between 52% and 56%. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance volumetry using whole-tumor volume measurements can be helpful in rectal cancer response assessment with selected cut-off values. Measurements of tumor length or 3-dimensional tumor size are not helpful. Magnetic resonance volumetry is mainly accurate to assess a complete tumor response (ypT0) after chemoradiation therapy (accuracies up to 80%).
Authors: Ma Jesús Fernández-Aceñero; Lourdes Estrada Muñoz; Javier Sastre Varela; Juan Antonio Corona Sánchez; Cristina Díaz Del Arco; Beatriz García Paredes; Sofía Córdoba Largo; Laura Del Puerto Nevado Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2017-02
Authors: Niels W Schurink; Lisa A Min; Maaike Berbee; Wouter van Elmpt; Joost J M van Griethuysen; Frans C H Bakers; Sander Roberti; Simon R van Kranen; Max J Lahaye; Monique Maas; Geerard L Beets; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stefano Trebeschi; Joost J M van Griethuysen; Doenja M J Lambregts; Max J Lahaye; Chintan Parmar; Frans C H Bakers; Nicky H G M Peters; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Regina G H Beets-Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts; Monique Maas; Shandra Bipat; Brunella Barbaro; Luís Curvo-Semedo; Helen M Fenlon; Marc J Gollub; Sofia Gourtsoyianni; Steve Halligan; Christine Hoeffel; Seung Ho Kim; Andrea Laghi; Andrea Maier; Søren R Rafaelsen; Jaap Stoker; Stuart A Taylor; Michael R Torkzad; Lennart Blomqvist Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Qiaoyu Xu; Yanyan Xu; Hongliang Sun; Tao Jiang; Sheng Xie; Bee Yen Ooi; Yi Ding Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 3.989
Authors: Nicola Tarallo; Maria Gloria Angeretti; Elena Bracchi; Genti Xhepa; Valeria Molinelli; Chiara Tagliaferri; Paolo Antognoni; Raffaele Novario; Fausto Sessa; Carlo Fugazzola Journal: Pol J Radiol Date: 2018-12-17