CT assessment of tumour response to treatment: comparison of linear, cross-sectional and volumetric measures of tumour size

被引:128
作者
Sohaib, SA
Turner, B
Hanson, JA
Farquharson, M
Oliver, RTD
Reznek, RH
机构
[1] St Bartholomews Hosp, Dept Diagnost Imaging, London EC1A 7BE, England
[2] St Bartholomews Hosp, Dept Oncol, London EC1A 7BE, England
[3] City Univ London, Dept Radiog, London EC1, England
关键词
D O I
10.1259/bjr.73.875.11144795
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Changes in cross-sectional area are currently used to assess tumour response to treatment. The aims of this study were to validate a helical CT technique for volume determination using a series of phantoms and to compare tumour responses indicated by one-, two- and three-dimensional measures of tumour size change in patients treated for germ cell cancer or lymphoma. All studies were performed on an IGE HiSpeed Advantage helical CT scanner with an Advantage Windows workstation. Phantom volumes were calculated using volume reconstruction software and compared with reference volumes determined by water displacement. 20 lymph node masses were studied on serial CT scans in 16 patients treated with chemotherapy for germ cell cancer or lymphoma. For each lesion the maximum diameter, maximum cross-sectional area and volume were determined before and after treatment. Tumour response was assessed using the standard World Health Organisation criteria tie. changes in cross-sectional area) and the newly proposed unidimensional response evaluation criteria in solid tumour (RECIST). The CT volume measurement error was 1.0-5.1% for regularly shaped phantoms larger than 35 cm(3). In the assessment of treatment response there was 90% agreement between one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) measurements and 100% agreement between 2D and three-dimensional (3D) measurements. CT volume measurements are accurate and reproducible, particularly for larger structures. Assessment of tumour response using 1D, 2D and 3D measures had limited influence on the classification of treatment response. However, the impact of CT assessment of tumour response using 1D, 2D and 3D measurements on clinical decisions and patient outcome remains to be determined.
引用
收藏
页码:1178 / 1184
页数:7
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]   VOLUME DETERMINATIONS USING COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY [J].
BREIMAN, RS ;
BECK, JW ;
KOROBKIN, M ;
GLENNY, R ;
AKWARI, OE ;
HEASTON, DK ;
MOORE, AV ;
RAM, PC .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1982, 138 (02) :329-333
[2]   HOW ACCURATE ARE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC SCANS IN ASSESSMENT OF CHANGES IN TUMOR SIZE [J].
FRIEDMAN, MA ;
RESSER, KJ ;
MARCUS, FS ;
MOSS, AA ;
CANN, CE .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1983, 75 (02) :193-198
[3]   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
[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]  
Husband JE, 1996, EUR RADIOL, V6, P775
[7]   Measuring response in solid tumors: Unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement [J].
James, K ;
Eisenhauer, E ;
Christian, M ;
Terenziani, M ;
Vena, D ;
Muldal, A ;
Therasse, P .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1999, 91 (06) :523-528
[8]  
KOEHLER PR, 1979, RADIOLOGY, V130, P189
[9]  
MILLER AB, 1981, CANCER, V47, P207, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19810101)47:1<207::AID-CNCR2820470134>3.0.CO
[10]  
2-6