D Calvo Temprano1, E Esteban2, P Jiménez Fonseca2, B Fernández-Mariño3. 1. Radiology Service, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Avenida de Roma, s/n, ES-33011, Oviedo, Asturias, Spain. dhousev@gmail.com. 2. Medical Oncology Service, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Asturias, Spain. 3. Radiology Service, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Avenida de Roma, s/n, ES-33011, Oviedo, Asturias, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is broad consensus regarding evaluating response to chemotherapy (CHT) by means of computerized tomography (CT) in patients with localized or locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). We present a study comparing the usefulness of CT versus chest X-ray (XR) and clinical findings when indicating radiotherapy (RT) following CHT. METHODS:Ninety-eight of 150 subjects with unresectable locally advanced NSCLC were blindly and independently evaluated by XR and CT, with pairs of chest XR and CT (before and after CHT). A null hypothesis (H0) was established of the conditioned probability of detecting progression by CT and not by XR of 10 % or more, with a statistical power of 80 %. RESULTS:Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of XR versus CT were 98, 89, 99, and 80 % respectively. A 4 % (p = 0.0451) probability of improvement of CT versus XR was calculated, enabling the H0 to be ruled out. CONCLUSION: The CT failed to prove to be significantly superior to the chest XR + clinical picture in indicating a change in treatment approach in patients with unresectable locally advanced NSCLC after CHT.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: There is broad consensus regarding evaluating response to chemotherapy (CHT) by means of computerized tomography (CT) in patients with localized or locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). We present a study comparing the usefulness of CT versus chest X-ray (XR) and clinical findings when indicating radiotherapy (RT) following CHT. METHODS: Ninety-eight of 150 subjects with unresectable locally advanced NSCLC were blindly and independently evaluated by XR and CT, with pairs of chest XR and CT (before and after CHT). A null hypothesis (H0) was established of the conditioned probability of detecting progression by CT and not by XR of 10 % or more, with a statistical power of 80 %. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of XR versus CT were 98, 89, 99, and 80 % respectively. A 4 % (p = 0.0451) probability of improvement of CT versus XR was calculated, enabling the H0 to be ruled out. CONCLUSION: The CT failed to prove to be significantly superior to the chest XR + clinical picture in indicating a change in treatment approach in patients with unresectable locally advanced NSCLC after CHT.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chest X-ray; Computerized tomography; Lung cancer; Lung cancer staging; Non-small cell carcinoma of the lung; RECIST
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: David G Pfister; David H Johnson; Christopher G Azzoli; William Sause; Thomas J Smith; Sherman Baker; Jemi Olak; Diane Stover; John R Strawn; Andrew T Turrisi; Mark R Somerfield Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Pilar Garrido; Javier de Castro; Ángel Concha; Enriqueta Felip; Dolores Isla; Fernando López-Ríos; Luis Paz-Ares; José Ramírez; Julián Sanz; José Javier Gómez Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: T Le Chevalier; R Arriagada; E Quoix; P Ruffie; M Martin; M Tarayre; M J Lacombe-Terrier; J Y Douillard; A Laplanche Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1991-03-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jean-Pierre Pignon; Hélène Tribodet; Giorgio V Scagliotti; Jean-Yves Douillard; Frances A Shepherd; Richard J Stephens; Ariane Dunant; Valter Torri; Rafael Rosell; Lesley Seymour; Stephen G Spiro; Estelle Rolland; Roldano Fossati; Delphine Aubert; Keyue Ding; David Waller; Thierry Le Chevalier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 44.544