Literature DB >> 9308943

Tumor size evaluated by pelvic examination compared with 3-D quantitative analysis in the prediction of outcome for cervical cancer.

N A Mayr1, W T Yuh, J Zheng, J C Ehrhardt, J I Sorosky, V A Magnotta, R E Pelsang, D H Hussey.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Tumor size estimated by pelvic examination (PE) is an important prognostic factor in cervical cancer treated with radiation therapy (RT). Recent histologic correlation studies also showed that magnetic resonance (MR) imaging provides highly accurate measurements of the actual tumor volume. The purpose of this study was to: (a) compare the accuracy of PE and MR in predicting outcome, and (b) correlate tumor measurements by PE versus MR. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Tumor measurements were performed prospectively in 43 patients with advanced cervical cancer. MR and PE were performed at the same time intervals: (a) at the start of RT, (b) after 20-24 Gy/2-2.5 weeks, (c) after 40-50 Gy/4-5 weeks, and (d) at follow-up (1-2 months after RT completion). PE measured tumor diameters in anteroposterior, lateral, and craniocaudal direction, and PE-derived tumor size was computed as maximum diameter, average diameter, and ellipsoid volume. MR-derived tumor size was calculated by summation of the tumor areas in each section and multiplication by the section thickness. Tumor regression during RT was calculated for each method as percentage of initial volume. The measurements were correlated with local failure and disease-free survival. Median follow-up was 29 months (range: 9-56 months).
RESULTS: Prediction of local control: Overall, tumor regression rate (rapid versus slow) was more precise than the initial tumor size in the prediction of outcome. MR provided a more accurate and earlier prediction of local control (at 2-2.5 weeks, and at 4-5 weeks of RT) than PE (only at follow-up). Based on the initial tumor size, MR was also better than PE in predicting disease-free survival and local control, particularly in large (> or = 100 cm3) tumors. Size correlation: Tumor size (maximum diameter, average diameter, volume) by PE and MR did not correlate well (r = 0.51, 0.61, and 0.58, respectively). When using MR measurements as a reference, PE tended to overestimate intermediate-size (40-99 cm3) tumors.
CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that increased precision of tumor volume measurement leads to more accurate and earlier prediction of outcome in cervical cancer. MR tumor volumetry may be useful as an adjunct to PE in selected cases, and holds the potential to impact therapeutic decision-making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9308943     DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(97)00318-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  21 in total

1.  Volume Measurement by Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Shinya Fujii; Naoki Iwata; Chie Inoue; Naoko Mukuda; Takeru Fukunaga; Toshihide Ogawa
Journal:  Yonago Acta Med       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 1.641

2.  Assessment of tumor regression by consecutive pelvic magnetic resonance imaging and dose modification during high-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix.

Authors:  Taek-Keun Nam; Byung-Sik Nah; Ho-Sun Choi; Woong-Ki Chung; Sung-Ja Ahn; Seok-Mo Kim; Ju-Young Song; Mi-Seon Yoon
Journal:  Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2005-06-30       Impact factor: 4.679

3.  MRI assessment of cervical cancer for adaptive radiotherapy.

Authors:  Johannes C A Dimopoulos; Gertrude Schirl; Anja Baldinger; Thomas H Helbich; Richard Pötter
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 3.621

4.  Ultra-early predictive assay for treatment failure using functional magnetic resonance imaging and clinical prognostic parameters in cervical cancer.

Authors:  Nina A Mayr; William T C Yuh; David Jajoura; Jian Z Wang; Simon S Lo; Joseph F Montebello; Kyle Porter; Dongqing Zhang; D Scott McMeekin; John M Buatti
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Validation of optimal DCE-MRI perfusion threshold to classify at-risk tumor imaging voxels in heterogeneous cervical cancer for outcome prediction.

Authors:  Zhibin Huang; Kevin A Yuh; Simon S Lo; John C Grecula; Steffen Sammet; Christina L Sammet; Guang Jia; Michael V Knopp; Qiang Wu; Norman J Beauchamp; William T C Yuh; Roy Wang; Nina A Mayr
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 2.546

6.  Translating response during therapy into ultimate treatment outcome: a personalized 4-dimensional MRI tumor volumetric regression approach in cervical cancer.

Authors:  Nina A Mayr; Jian Z Wang; Simon S Lo; Dongqing Zhang; John C Grecula; Lanchun Lu; Joseph F Montebello; Jeffrey M Fowler; William T C Yuh
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-07-23       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Value of pelvic examination and imaging modality for the evaluation of tumor size in cervical cancer.

Authors:  Yoo-Kyung Lee; Seung-Su Han; Jae Weon Kim; Noh-Hyun Park; Yong-Sang Song; Soon-Beom Kang
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-06-20       Impact factor: 4.401

8.  Predicting outcomes in cervical cancer: a kinetic model of tumor regression during radiation therapy.

Authors:  Zhibin Huang; Nina A Mayr; William T C Yuh; Simon S Lo; Joseph F Montebello; John C Grecula; Lanchun Lu; Kaile Li; Hualin Zhang; Nilendu Gupta; Jian Z Wang
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 12.701

9.  Comparison of tumor regression rate of uterine cervical squamous cell carcinoma during external beam and intracavitary radiotherapy.

Authors:  Kiyoshi Ohara; Yumiko Oishi Tanaka; Akinori Oki; Yoshikazu Okamoto; Toyomi Satoh; Koji Matsumoto; Hiroyuki Yoshikawa
Journal:  Radiat Med       Date:  2008-11-22

10.  Characterizing at-Risk Voxels by Using Perfusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Cervical Cancer during Radiotherapy.

Authors:  Zhibin Huang; Nina A Mayr; Simon S Lo; John C Grecula; Jian Z Wang; Guang Jia; William Tc Yuh
Journal:  J Cancer Sci Ther       Date:  2012-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.