Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: Implications for assessment of tumor response

被引:375
作者
Erasmus, JJ
Gladish, GW
Broemeling, L
Sabloff, BS
Truong, MT
Herbst, RS
Munden, RF
机构
[1] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Diagnost Radiol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Biostat, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[3] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Thorac Head & Neck Med Oncol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1200/JCO.2003.01.144
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose Response of solid malignancies to therapy is usually determined by serial measurements of tumor size. The purpose of our study was to assess the consistency of measurements performed by readers evaluating lung tumors. Materials and Methods: The study group was composed of 33 patients with lung tumors more than 1.5 cm. Bidimensional (BD) and unidimensional (UD) measurements were performed on computed tomography (CT) scans according to the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria and the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), respectively. Measurements were performed independently by five thoracic radiologists using printed film and were repeated after 5 to 7 days. Inter- and introobserver measurement variations were estimated through statistical modeling. Results: There were 40 tumors with an average size of 1.8 to 8.0 cm (mean, 4.1 cm). Analysis of variance showed a significant difference (P < .05) among readers and among the measured nodules for UD and BD measurements. Interobserver misclassification rates were more than intraobserver misclassification rates using either progressive disease or response criteria. The probability of misclassifying a tumor with the WHO criteria or RECIST was greatest with interobserver measurements when criteria for progression (43% BD, 30% UD) were used and lowest with introobserver measurements when criteria for response (2.5% BD, 3.0% UD) were used. In addition, interobserver misclassification rates were more than intraobserver misclassification rates for both regular and irregular tumors. Conclusion: Measurements of lung tumor size on CT scans are often inconsistent and can lead to an incorrect interpretation of tumor response. Consistency can be improved if the same reader performs serial measurements for any one patient. (C) 2003 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.
引用
收藏
页码:2574 / 2582
页数:9
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]   Experience with independent radiological review during a topotecan trial in ovarian cancer [J].
Gwyther, S ;
Bolis, G ;
Gore, M ;
Huinink, WT ;
Verweij, J ;
Hudson, IR ;
Despax, R ;
JimenezLacave, A .
ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 1997, 8 (05) :463-468
[2]   Response assessment using radiological methods [J].
Gwyther, SJ .
CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ONCOLOGY HEMATOLOGY, 1999, 30 (01) :45-62
[3]   Development of biologic markers of response and assessment of antiangiogenic activity in a clinical trial of human recombinant endostatin [J].
Herbst, RS ;
Mullani, NA ;
Davis, DW ;
Hess, KR ;
McConkey, DJ ;
Charnsangavej, C ;
O'Reilly, MS ;
Kim, HW ;
Baker, C ;
Roach, J ;
Ellis, LM ;
Rashid, A ;
Pluda, J ;
Bucana, C ;
Madden, TL ;
Tran, HT ;
Abbruzzese, JL .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2002, 20 (18) :3804-3814
[4]   The impact of 2D versus 3D quantitation of tumor bulk determination on current methods of assessing response to treatment [J].
Hopper, KD ;
Kasales, CJ ;
Eggli, KD ;
TenHave, TR ;
Belman, NM ;
Potok, PS ;
VanSlyke, MA ;
Olt, GJ ;
Close, P ;
Lipton, A ;
Harvey, HA ;
Hartzel, JS .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 1996, 20 (06) :930-937
[5]   Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements [J].
Hopper, KD ;
Kasales, CJ ;
VanSlyke, MA ;
Schwartz, TA ;
TenHave, TR ;
Jozefiak, JA .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1996, 167 (04) :851-854
[6]   Is the chest radiograph a reliable tool in the assessment of tumor response after radiotherapy in nonsmall cell lung carcinoma? [J].
Langendijk, HA ;
Lamers, RJS ;
ten Velde, GPM ;
Sanders, DGM ;
de Jong, JMA ;
Kessels, F ;
Wouters, EFM .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1998, 41 (05) :1037-1045
[7]  
LAVIN PT, 1980, CANCER, V46, P1286, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19800901)46:5<1286::AID-CNCR2820460533>3.0.CO
[8]  
2-F
[9]  
MILLER AB, 1981, CANCER, V47, P207, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19810101)47:1<207::AID-CNCR2820470134>3.0.CO
[10]  
2-6