Literature DB >> 29736851

Towards volumetric thresholds in RECIST 1.1: Therapeutic response assessment in hepatic metastases.

Katharina S Winter1, Felix O Hofmann2, Kolja M Thierfelder3, Julian W Holch4,5, Nina Hesse2, Alena B Baumann2, Dominik P Modest4,5, Sebastian Stintzing4,5, Volker Heinemann4,5, Jens Ricke2, Wieland H Sommer2, Melvin D'Anastasi2,6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To empirically determine thresholds for volumetric assessment of response and progress of liver metastases in line with the unidimensional RECIST thresholds.
METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer initially enrolled in a multicentre clinical phase-III trial were included. In all CT scans, the longest axial diameters and volumes of hepatic lesions were determined semi-automatically. The sum of diameters and volumes of 1, ≤2 and ≤5 metastases were compared to all previous examinations. Volumetric thresholds corresponding to RECIST 1.1 thresholds were predicted with loess-regression. In sensitivity analysis, the concordances of proposed thresholds, weight-maximizing thresholds and thresholds from loess-regression were compared. Classification concordance for measurements of ≤2 metastases was further analyzed.
RESULTS: For measurements of ≤2 metastases, 348 patients with 629 metastases were included, resulting in 4,773 value pairs. Regression analysis yielded volumetric thresholds of -65.3% for a diameter change of -30%, and +64.6% for a diameter change of +20%. When comparing measurements of unidimensional RECIST assessment with volumetric measurements, there was a concordance of significant progress (≥+20% and ≥+65%) in 88.3% and of significant response (≤-30% and ≤-65%) in 85.0%.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with hepatic metastases, volumetric thresholds of +65% and -65% were yielded corresponding to RECIST thresholds of +20% and -30%. KEY POINTS: • Volumes and diameters of liver metastases from colorectal cancer were determined. • Volumetric thresholds of +65%/-65% corresponding to RECIST 1.1 are proposed. • Comparing both measurements, concordance was 88.3% (significant progress) and 85.0% (significant response).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Image interpretation, computer-assisted; Liver; Neoplasm metastasis; Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors; Tomography, X-Ray computed

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29736851     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5424-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  20 in total

1.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

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

2.  Semi-automated quantification of hepatic lesions in a phantom.

Authors:  Sebastian Keil; Cedric Plumhans; Florian F Behrendt; Sven Stanzel; Michael Suehling; Georg Mühlenbruch; Andreas H Mahnken; Rolf W Günther; Marco Das
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 6.016

3.  Lung, liver and lymph node metastases in follow-up MSCT: comprehensive volumetric assessment of lesion size changes.

Authors:  A M Wulff; H Bolte; S Fischer; S Freitag-Wolf; G Soza; C Tietjen; J Biederer; M Heller; M Fabel
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2012-08-07

4.  Measurement of tumor volumes improves RECIST-based response assessments in advanced lung cancer.

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

5.  Size quantification of liver metastases in patients undergoing cancer treatment: reproducibility of one-, two-, and three-dimensional measurements determined with spiral CT.

Authors:  L Van Hoe; E Van Cutsem; I Vergote; A L Baert; E Bellon; P Dupont; G Marchal
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Dose reduction for semi-automated volumetry of hepatic metastasis in MDCT studies.

Authors:  Sebastian Keil; Cedric Plumhans; Istvan A Nagy; Katharina Schiffl; Grzegorz Soza; Florian F Behrendt; Andreas H Mahnken; Rolf W Günther; Marco Das
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 6.016

7.  CT assessment of tumour response to treatment: comparison of linear, cross-sectional and volumetric measures of tumour size.

Authors:  S A Sohaib; B Turner; J A Hanson; M Farquharson; R T Oliver; R H Reznek
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Hepatic tumors: region-of-interest versus volumetric analysis for quantification of attenuation at CT.

Authors:  Hamid Chalian; Sandra M Tochetto; Hüseyin G Töre; Pedram Rezai; Vahid Yaghmai
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a post-hoc analysis of tumour dynamics in the final RAS wild-type subgroup of this randomised open-label phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Sebastian Stintzing; Dominik P Modest; Lisa Rossius; Markus M Lerch; Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal; Thomas Decker; Alexander Kiani; Ursula Vehling-Kaiser; Salah-Eddin Al-Batran; Tobias Heintges; Christian Lerchenmüller; Christoph Kahl; Gernot Seipelt; Frank Kullmann; Martina Stauch; Werner Scheithauer; Swantje Held; Clemens Giessen-Jung; Markus Moehler; Andreas Jagenburg; Thomas Kirchner; Andreas Jung; Volker Heinemann
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2016-08-27       Impact factor: 41.316

10.  FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Volker Heinemann; Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal; Thomas Decker; Alexander Kiani; Ursula Vehling-Kaiser; Salah-Eddin Al-Batran; Tobias Heintges; Christian Lerchenmüller; Christoph Kahl; Gernot Seipelt; Frank Kullmann; Martina Stauch; Werner Scheithauer; Jörg Hielscher; Michael Scholz; Sebastian Müller; Hartmut Link; Norbert Niederle; Andreas Rost; Heinz-Gert Höffkes; Markus Moehler; Reinhard U Lindig; Dominik P Modest; Lisa Rossius; Thomas Kirchner; Andreas Jung; Sebastian Stintzing
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 41.316

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  The Potential and Emerging Role of Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers for Cancer Characterization.

Authors:  Hishan Tharmaseelan; Alexander Hertel; Shereen Rennebaum; Dominik Nörenberg; Verena Haselmann; Stefan O Schoenberg; Matthias F Froelich
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-09       Impact factor: 6.575

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.