Sheng-Xiang Rao1, Doenja Mj Lambregts2, Roald S Schnerr2, Rianne Cj Beckers3, Monique Maas2, Fabrizio Albarello4, Robert G Riedl5, Cornelis Hc Dejong6, Milou H Martens3, Luc A Heijnen3, Walter H Backes2, Geerard L Beets7, Meng-Su Zeng8, Regina Gh Beets-Tan9. 1. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, S. Anna Hospital, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy. 5. Department of Pathology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 9. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) are known to have limitations in assessing the response of colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) to chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to compare CT texture analysis to RECIST-based size measurements and tumor volumetry for response assessment of CRLMs to chemotherapy. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with CRLMs underwent CT pre- and post-chemotherapy. Texture parameters mean intensity (M), entropy (E) and uniformity (U) were assessed for the largest metastatic lesion using different filter values (0.0 = no/0.5 = fine/1.5 = medium/2.5 = coarse filtration). Total volume (cm(3)) of all metastatic lesions and the largest size of one to two lesions (according to RECIST 1.1) were determined. Potential predictive parameters to differentiate good responders (n = 9; histological TRG 1-2) from poor responders (n = 12; TRG 3-5) were identified by univariable logistic regression analysis and subsequently tested in multivariable logistic regression analysis. Diagnostic odds ratios were recorded. RESULTS: The best predictive texture parameters were Δuniformity and Δentropy (without filtration). Odds ratios for Δuniformity and Δentropy in the multivariable analyses were 0.95 and 1.34, respectively. Pre- and post-treatment texture parameters, as well as the various size and volume measures, were not significant predictors. Odds ratios for Δsize and Δvolume in the univariable logistic regression were 1.08 and 1.05, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Relative differences in CT texture occurring after treatment hold promise to assess the pathologic response to chemotherapy in patients with CRLMs and may be better predictors of response than changes in lesion size or volume.
BACKGROUND: Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) are known to have limitations in assessing the response of colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) to chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to compare CT texture analysis to RECIST-based size measurements and tumor volumetry for response assessment of CRLMs to chemotherapy. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with CRLMs underwent CT pre- and post-chemotherapy. Texture parameters mean intensity (M), entropy (E) and uniformity (U) were assessed for the largest metastatic lesion using different filter values (0.0 = no/0.5 = fine/1.5 = medium/2.5 = coarse filtration). Total volume (cm(3)) of all metastatic lesions and the largest size of one to two lesions (according to RECIST 1.1) were determined. Potential predictive parameters to differentiate good responders (n = 9; histological TRG 1-2) from poor responders (n = 12; TRG 3-5) were identified by univariable logistic regression analysis and subsequently tested in multivariable logistic regression analysis. Diagnostic odds ratios were recorded. RESULTS: The best predictive texture parameters were Δuniformity and Δentropy (without filtration). Odds ratios for Δuniformity and Δentropy in the multivariable analyses were 0.95 and 1.34, respectively. Pre- and post-treatment texture parameters, as well as the various size and volume measures, were not significant predictors. Odds ratios for Δsize and Δvolume in the univariable logistic regression were 1.08 and 1.05, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Relative differences in CT texture occurring after treatment hold promise to assess the pathologic response to chemotherapy in patients with CRLMs and may be better predictors of response than changes in lesion size or volume.
Authors: Balaji Ganeshan; Vicky Goh; Henry C Mandeville; Quan Sing Ng; Peter J Hoskin; Kenneth A Miles Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sheng-Xiang Rao; Doenja Mj Lambregts; Roald S Schnerr; Wenzel van Ommen; Thiemo Ja van Nijnatten; Milou H Martens; Luc A Heijnen; Walter H Backes; Cornelis Verhoef; Meng-Su Zeng; Geerard L Beets; Regina Gh Beets-Tan Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Rebekah H Gensure; David J Foran; Vincent M Lee; Vyacheslav M Gendel; Salma K Jabbour; Darren R Carpizo; John L Nosher; Lin Yang Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 3.173
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: Marco Ravanelli; Giorgio Maria Agazzi; Elena Tononcelli; Elisa Roca; Paolo Cabassa; Gianluca Baiocchi; Alfredo Berruti; Roberto Maroldi; Davide Farina Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Katja Pinker; Fuki Shitano; Evis Sala; Richard K Do; Robert J Young; Andreas G Wibmer; Hedvig Hricak; Elizabeth J Sutton; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Yanqi Huang; Lan He; Di Dong; Caiyun Yang; Cuishan Liang; Xin Chen; Zelan Ma; Xiaomei Huang; Su Yao; Changhong Liang; Jie Tian; Zaiyi Liu Journal: Chin J Cancer Res Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 5.087