Treatment response classification of liver metastatic disease evaluated on imaging. Are RECIST unidimensional measurements accurate?

被引:45
作者
Mantatzis, Michael
Kakolyris, Stylianos [2 ]
Amarantidis, Kyriakos [2 ]
Karayiannakis, Anastasios [3 ]
Prassopoulos, Panos [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Alexandroupolis, Dept Radiol, Med Sch Thrace, Dragana 68100, Alexandroupolis, Greece
[2] Univ Hosp Alexandroupolis, Dept Oncol, Dragana 68100, Alexandroupolis, Greece
[3] Univ Hosp Alexandroupolis, Dept Surg 2, Dragana 68100, Alexandroupolis, Greece
关键词
Recist; Volumetry; MRI; Liver metastatic disease; SPIO; AUTOMATED CT VOLUMETRY; FOCAL HEPATIC-LESIONS; PULMONARY METASTASES; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; TUMOR RESPONSE; SOLID TUMORS; CRITERIA; GADOLINIUM;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-009-1327-4
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
100231 [临床病理学]; 100902 [航空航天医学];
摘要
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of unidimensional measurements (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors, RECIST) compared with volumetric measurements in patients with liver metastases undergoing chemotherapy. Forty-four patients with newly diagnosed liver lesions underwent three MRI examinations at treatment initiation, during chemotherapy, and immediately post-treatment. Measurements based on RECIST guidelines and volume calculations were performed on the "target" lesions (TLs). The two methods were in agreement in 64/77 of patients and 253/301 of individual lesions classification in response categories ("good" agreement, Cohen kappa = 0.735 and 0.741, respectively). In 16.88% of the comparisons the two methods stratified patients to a different response category; 27.6% of TLs did not follow the response category of the patient in whom lesions were located. The actual volume of TLs differs from the calculated volume of a sphere with the same diameter. Our study supports the use of volumetric techniques that may overcome certain disadvantages of unidimensional measurements.
引用
收藏
页码:1809 / 1816
页数:8
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]
Altman DG, 1991, PRACTICAL STAT MED R, Vxii
[2]
[Anonymous], 1979, HDB REP RES CANC TRE
[3]
Colorectal liver metastases: CT, MR imaging, and PET for diagnosis - Meta-analysis [J].
Bipat, S ;
van Leeuwen, MS ;
Comans, EFI ;
Pijl, MEJ ;
Bossuyt, PMM ;
Zwinderman, AH ;
Stoker, J .
RADIOLOGY, 2005, 237 (01) :123-131
[4]
Hepatic lesion detection at MR imaging: A comparative study with four sequences [J].
Blakeborough, A ;
Ward, J ;
Wilson, D ;
Griffiths, M ;
Kajiya, Y ;
Guthrie, JA ;
Robinson, PJA .
RADIOLOGY, 1997, 203 (03) :759-765
[5]
Detection of liver metastases: Comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced and ferumoxides-enhanced MR imaging examinations [J].
Del Frate, C ;
Bazzocchi, M ;
Mortele, KJ ;
Zuiani, C ;
Londero, V ;
Como, G ;
Zanardi, R ;
Ros, PR .
RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 (03) :766-772
[6]
Will there be resistance to the RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors)? [J].
Gehan, EA ;
Tefft, MC .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2000, 92 (03) :179-181
[7]
GOLDIE JH, 1979, CANCER TREAT REP, V63, P1727
[8]
Gurland J, 1966, Cancer Chemother Rep, V50, P119
[9]
Follow-up CT measurement of liver malignoma according to RECIST and WHO vs. Volumetry [J].
Heubel, C. P. ;
Meier, S. ;
Wittelsberger, S. ;
Goette, H. ;
Mildenberger, P. ;
Kauczor, H.-U. .
ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2007, 179 (09) :958-964
[10]
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