K Massicotte-Tisluck1,2, D Vanderweyen1,2, J-F Vendrell, D Fortin3,4, G Gahide5,4. 1. From the Département d'Imagerie Médicale, (K.M.-T., D.V., G.G.), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada. 2. Faculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la Santé (K.M.-T., D.V.), Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada. 3. Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Etienne Le Bel (D.F., G.G.), Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada. 4. Service de Neurochirurgie, Département de Chirurgie (D.F.), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada. 5. From the Département d'Imagerie Médicale, (K.M.-T., D.V., G.G.), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada gerald.gahide@usherbrooke.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Current guidelines proposed for the measurement of primary central nervous system lymphoma in 2005 have indicated that unidimensional and bidimensional measurements may be used, using the same threshold for response categorization, because no clinical study has evaluated the agreement among the measurement techniques. Hence, our study assessed the agreement among different measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, primary central nervous system lymphoma lesions were measured with different techniques (longest 1D, axial 1D, 2D, 3D, and the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor) on consecutive MR images. Intra- and interobserver correlations were calculated with intraclass correlation coefficients. Correlations between raw measurements and variations in size compared with baseline were evaluated with the Spearman rank correlation, and agreement among response categories was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 304 examinations obtained in 40 patients was assessed. The intraobserver intraclass correlation coefficient for 3D, 2D, and longest 1D were ≥0.993. The interobserver intraclass correlation coefficient was ≥0.967. The correlations in raw measurements and size variation in comparison with 3D were respectively; 0.99 and 0.98 for 2D; 0.94 and 0.92 for longest 1D; 0.94 and 0.83 for axial 1D; and 0.90 and 0.79 for Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor. With 20%-30% and 25%-50% thresholds for unidimensional techniques, response categorizations were 95% and 95% for 2D, 92.5% and 90% for the longest 1D, 87.5% and 82.5% for axial 1D, and 90% and 85% for the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Both longest 1D and 2D demonstrated excellent correlations with 3D measurements. The longest 1D could be used for the follow-up of primary central nervous system lymphoma. If unidimensional measurements were used, 20% and 30% cutoffs should be used for defining response categorization instead of the current guidelines.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Current guidelines proposed for the measurement of primary central nervous system lymphoma in 2005 have indicated that unidimensional and bidimensional measurements may be used, using the same threshold for response categorization, because no clinical study has evaluated the agreement among the measurement techniques. Hence, our study assessed the agreement among different measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, primary central nervous system lymphoma lesions were measured with different techniques (longest 1D, axial 1D, 2D, 3D, and the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor) on consecutive MR images. Intra- and interobserver correlations were calculated with intraclass correlation coefficients. Correlations between raw measurements and variations in size compared with baseline were evaluated with the Spearman rank correlation, and agreement among response categories was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 304 examinations obtained in 40 patients was assessed. The intraobserver intraclass correlation coefficient for 3D, 2D, and longest 1D were ≥0.993. The interobserver intraclass correlation coefficient was ≥0.967. The correlations in raw measurements and size variation in comparison with 3D were respectively; 0.99 and 0.98 for 2D; 0.94 and 0.92 for longest 1D; 0.94 and 0.83 for axial 1D; and 0.90 and 0.79 for Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor. With 20%-30% and 25%-50% thresholds for unidimensional techniques, response categorizations were 95% and 95% for 2D, 92.5% and 90% for the longest 1D, 87.5% and 82.5% for axial 1D, and 90% and 85% for the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Both longest 1D and 2D demonstrated excellent correlations with 3D measurements. The longest 1D could be used for the follow-up of primary central nervous system lymphoma. If unidimensional measurements were used, 20% and 30% cutoffs should be used for defining response categorization instead of the current guidelines.
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: Lauren E Abrey; Tracy T Batchelor; Andrés J M Ferreri; Mary Gospodarowicz; Elisa J Pulczynski; Emanuele Zucca; Justine R Smith; Agnieszka Korfel; Carole Soussain; Lisa M DeAngelis; Edward A Neuwelt; Brian Patrick O'Neill; Eckhard Thiel; Tamara Shenkier; Fransesc Graus; Martin van den Bent; John F Seymour; Philip Poortmans; James O Armitage; Franco Cavalli Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-06-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael A Vogelbaum; Sarah Jost; Manish K Aghi; Amy B Heimberger; John H Sampson; Patrick Y Wen; David R Macdonald; Martin J Van den Bent; Susan M Chang Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: K D Hopper; C J Kasales; M A Van Slyke; T A Schwartz; T R TenHave; J A Jozefiak Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 3.959
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