L A Gilligan1,2, M D DeWire-Schottmiller3,2, M Fouladi3,4, P DeBlank4, J L Leach5,6. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (L.A.G., J.L.L.). 2. Department of Graduate Medical Education (L.A.G., M.D.D.-S.), Mount Carmel Health System, Columbus, Ohio. 3. and Cancer and Blood Diseases Institute (M.D.D.-S., M.F.), Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. 4. and Departments of Pediatrics (M.F., P.D.). 5. From the Departments of Radiology (L.A.G., J.L.L.) james.leach@cchmc.org. 6. Radiology (J.L.L.), University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 2D measurements of diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas are limited by variability, and volumetric response criteria are poorly defined. Semiautomated 2D measurements may improve consistency; however, the impact on tumor response assessments is unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare manual 2D, semiautomated 2D, and volumetric measurement strategies for diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study evaluated patients with diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas through a Phase I/II trial (NCT02607124). Clinical 2D cross-product values were derived from manual linear measurements (cross-product = long axis × short axis). By means of dedicated software (mint Lesion), tumor margins were traced and maximum cross-product and tumor volume were automatically derived. Correlation and bias between methods were assessed, and response assessment per measurement strategy was reported. RESULTS: Ten patients (median age, 7.6 years) underwent 58 MR imaging examinations. Correlation and mean bias (95% limits) of percentage change in tumor size from prior examinations were the following: clinical and semiautomated cross-product, r = 0.36, -1.5% (-59.9%, 56.8%); clinical cross-product and volume, r = 0.61, -2.1% (-52.0%, 47.8%); and semiautomated cross-product and volume, r = 0.79, 0.6% (-39.3%, 38.1%). Stable disease, progressive disease, and partial response rates per measurement strategy were the following: clinical cross-product, 82%, 18%, 0%; semiautomated cross-product, 54%, 42%, 4%; and volume, 50%, 46%, 4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Manual 2D cross-product measurements may underestimate tumor size and disease progression compared with semiautomated 2D and volumetric measurements.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 2D measurements of diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas are limited by variability, and volumetric response criteria are poorly defined. Semiautomated 2D measurements may improve consistency; however, the impact on tumor response assessments is unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare manual 2D, semiautomated 2D, and volumetric measurement strategies for diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study evaluated patients with diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas through a Phase I/II trial (NCT02607124). Clinical 2D cross-product values were derived from manual linear measurements (cross-product = long axis × short axis). By means of dedicated software (mint Lesion), tumor margins were traced and maximum cross-product and tumor volume were automatically derived. Correlation and bias between methods were assessed, and response assessment per measurement strategy was reported. RESULTS: Ten patients (median age, 7.6 years) underwent 58 MR imaging examinations. Correlation and mean bias (95% limits) of percentage change in tumor size from prior examinations were the following: clinical and semiautomated cross-product, r = 0.36, -1.5% (-59.9%, 56.8%); clinical cross-product and volume, r = 0.61, -2.1% (-52.0%, 47.8%); and semiautomated cross-product and volume, r = 0.79, 0.6% (-39.3%, 38.1%). Stable disease, progressive disease, and partial response rates per measurement strategy were the following: clinical cross-product, 82%, 18%, 0%; semiautomated cross-product, 54%, 42%, 4%; and volume, 50%, 46%, 4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Manual 2D cross-product measurements may underestimate tumor size and disease progression compared with semiautomated 2D and volumetric measurements.
Authors: Patrick Y Wen; David R Macdonald; David A Reardon; Timothy F Cloughesy; A Gregory Sorensen; Evanthia Galanis; John Degroot; Wolfgang Wick; Mark R Gilbert; Andrew B Lassman; Christina Tsien; Tom Mikkelsen; Eric T Wong; Marc C Chamberlain; Roger Stupp; Kathleen R Lamborn; Michael A Vogelbaum; Martin J van den Bent; Susan M Chang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Garan T Riley; Paul A Armitage; Ruth Batty; Paul D Griffiths; Vicki Lee; John McMullan; Daniel J A Connolly Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2014-08-21
Authors: Marc H Jansen; Sophie E Veldhuijzen van Zanten; Esther Sanchez Aliaga; Martijn W Heymans; Monika Warmuth-Metz; Darren Hargrave; Erica J van der Hoeven; Corrie E Gidding; Eveline S de Bont; Omid S Eshghi; Roel Reddingius; Cacha M Peeters; Antoinette Y N Schouten-van Meeteren; Rob H J Gooskens; Bernd Granzen; Gabriel M Paardekooper; Geert O Janssens; David P Noske; Frederik Barkhof; Christof M Kramm; W Peter Vandertop; Gertjan J Kaspers; Dannis G van Vuurden Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Z Gokce-Samar; P A Beuriat; C Faure-Conter; C Carrie; S Chabaud; L Claude; F Di Rocco; C Mottolese; A Szathmari; C Chabert; D Frappaz Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Hideho Okada; Michael Weller; Raymond Huang; Gaetano Finocchiaro; Mark R Gilbert; Wolfgang Wick; Benjamin M Ellingson; Naoya Hashimoto; Ian F Pollack; Alba A Brandes; Enrico Franceschi; Christel Herold-Mende; Lakshmi Nayak; Ashok Panigrahy; Whitney B Pope; Robert Prins; John H Sampson; Patrick Y Wen; David A Reardon Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: E Lotan; B Zhang; S Dogra; W D Wang; D Carbone; G Fatterpekar; E K Oermann; Y W Lui Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Margot A Lazow; Martijn T Nievelstein; Adam Lane; Pratiti Bandopadhayhay; Mariko DeWire-Schottmiller; Maryam Fouladi; John W Glod; Robert J Greiner; Lindsey M Hoffman; Trent R Hummel; Lindsay Kilburn; Sarah Leary; Jane E Minturn; Roger Packer; David S Ziegler; Brooklyn Chaney; Katie Black; Peter de Blank; James L Leach Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 13.029