Literature DB >> 7214310

Studies in variation associated with the measurement of solid tumors.

P T Lavin, G Flowerdew.   

Abstract

The existing system for solid tumor evaluation is criticized and revised criteria are proposed. The foundation for this analysis is a tumor stimulation experiment to determine the distribution associated with measurement of solid tumors. This tumor simulation experiment was conducted among 26 oncologists in order to assess the errors associated with the measurement of solid tumors by means of palpation. Tumor size, shape, and texture were included as study factors. Tumor texture did not appear to affect measurement outcome. Overall, the statistical law governing tumor area measurement is best described as a log-normal distribution. Under this assumption, the sufficient statistic for the evaluation of tumor response or progression is simply the ratio of the tumor areas at each evaluation. The data generalize to permit the construction of statistical power curves for the probability of declaring response or progression, based upon the theoretic tumor/area ratios. Response and progression criteria are related in logarithmic proportion, i.e., a 50% decrease for response corresponds to a 100% increase for progression. The use of more sensitive progression criteria (a 25% increase in solid tumor area), in light of the nature of tumor measurement error, can lead to premature rejection of any therapy that stabilizes or reduces disease. Furthermore, the use of specified cutoffs for progression and response introduce a significant error into clinical evaluations of solid tumors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1980        PMID: 7214310     DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19800901)46:5<1286::aid-cncr2820460533>3.0.co;2-f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  13 in total

1.  Reproducibility of linear tumor measurements using PACS: comparison of caliper method with edge-tracing method.

Authors:  Wayne L Monsky; Vassilios Raptopoulos; Mary T Keogan; David Doty; Ihab Kamel; Chun Sam Yam; Bernard J Ransil
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-12-05       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Consensus recommendations for a standardized Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol in clinical trials.

Authors:  Benjamin M Ellingson; Martin Bendszus; Jerrold Boxerman; Daniel Barboriak; Bradley J Erickson; Marion Smits; Sarah J Nelson; Elizabeth Gerstner; Brian Alexander; Gregory Goldmacher; Wolfgang Wick; Michael Vogelbaum; Michael Weller; Evanthia Galanis; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Lalitha Shankar; Paula Jacobs; Whitney B Pope; Dewen Yang; Caroline Chung; Michael V Knopp; Soonme Cha; Martin J van den Bent; Susan Chang; W K Al Yung; Timothy F Cloughesy; Patrick Y Wen; Mark R Gilbert
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 12.300

3.  Emerging techniques and technologies in brain tumor imaging.

Authors:  Benjamin M Ellingson; Martin Bendszus; A Gregory Sorensen; Whitney B Pope
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 12.300

4.  Quantitation of ellipsoid tumor areas using a circumferential measuring device.

Authors:  R T Dorr; D S Alberts
Journal:  Med Oncol Tumor Pharmacother       Date:  1988

5.  Response rates--an evolution.

Authors:  E Poplin; L Baker
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.333

6.  [Comparison of unidimensional and bidimensional measurement to assess therapeutic response in the treatment of solid tumors].

Authors:  E A M Hauth; J Stattaus; M Forsting
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 0.635

7.  Accuracy of computerized tomography in determining hepatic tumor size in patients receiving liver transplantation or resection.

Authors:  R Mittal; C Kowal; T Starzl; D Van Thiel; K Bron; S Iwatsuki; R Schade; W Straub; A Dekker
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: measurement by RECIST, two-dimensional, computer-assisted tumor area, and computer-assisted tumor volume methods.

Authors:  Evanthia Galanis; Jan C Buckner; Matthew J Maurer; Rene Sykora; René Castillo; Karla V Ballman; Bradley J Erickson
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2006-03-02       Impact factor: 12.300

9.  Exploring intra- and inter-reader variability in uni-dimensional, bi-dimensional, and volumetric measurements of solid tumors on CT scans reconstructed at different slice intervals.

Authors:  Binsheng Zhao; Yongqiang Tan; Daniel J Bell; Sarah E Marley; Pingzhen Guo; Helen Mann; Marietta L J Scott; Lawrence H Schwartz; Dana C Ghiorghiu
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 3.528

10.  When progressive disease does not mean treatment failure: reconsidering the criteria for progression.

Authors:  Geoffrey R Oxnard; Michael J Morris; F Stephen Hodi; Laurence H Baker; Mark G Kris; Alan P Venook; Lawrence H Schwartz
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-08-27       Impact factor: 13.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.