Dataset Information

Variability in assessing treatment response: metastatic colorectal cancer as a paradigm.

ABSTRACT: The cutoff values currently used to categorize tumor response to therapy are neither biologically based nor tailored for measurement reproducibility with contemporary imaging modalities. Sources and magnitudes of discordance in response assessment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are unknown.A subset of patients' CT images of chest, abdomen, and pelvis were randomly chosen from a multicenter clinical trial evaluating insulin-like growth factor receptor type 1-targeted therapy in mCRC. Using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), three radiologists selected target lesions and measured "uni" (maximal diameter), "bi" (product of maximal diameter and maximal perpendicular diameter), and "vol" (volume) on baseline and 6-week posttherapy scans in the following ways: (i) each radiologist independently selected and measured target lesions and (ii) one radiologist's target lesions were blindly remeasured by the others. Variability in relative change of tumor measurements was analyzed using linear mixed effects models.Three radiologists independently selected 138, 101, and 146 metastatic target lesions in the liver, lungs, lymph nodes, and other organs (e.g., peritoneal cavity) in 29 patients. Of 198 target lesions total, 33% were selected by all three, 28% by two, and 39% by one radiologist. With independent selection, the variability in relative change of tumor measurements was 11% (uni), 19% (bi), and 22% (vol), respectively. When measuring the same lesions, the corresponding numbers were 8%, 14%, and 12%.The relatively low variability in change of mCRC measurements suggests that response criteria could be modified to allow more accurate and sensitive CT assessment of anticancer therapy efficacy.

SUBMITTER: Zhao B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4337392 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Variability in assessing treatment response: metastatic colorectal cancer as a paradigm.

Zhao Binsheng B Lee Shing M SM Lee Hyun-Ju HJ Tan Yongqiang Y Qi Jing J Persigehl Thorsten T Mozley David P DP Schwartz Lawrence H LH

Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 20140429 13

<h4>Purpose</h4>The cutoff values currently used to categorize tumor response to therapy are neither biologically based nor tailored for measurement reproducibility with contemporary imaging modalities. Sources and magnitudes of discordance in response assessment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are unknown.<h4>Experimental design</h4>A subset of patients' CT images of chest, abdomen, and pelvis were randomly chosen from a multicenter clinical trial evaluating insulin-like growth factor re ...[more]

PMID: 24780294

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeNew response patterns to anticancer drugs have led tumor size-based response criteria to shift to also include density measurements. Choi criteria, for instance, categorize antiangiogenic therapy response as a decrease in tumor density > 15% at the portal venous phase (PVP). We studied the effect that PVP timing has on measurement of the density of liver metastases (LM) from colorectal cancer (CRC).MethodsPretreatment PVP computed tomography images from 291 patients with LM-CRC from the CRYSTAL trial (Cetuximab Combined With Irinotecan in First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00154102) were included. Four radiologists independently scored the scans' timing according to a three-point scoring system: early, optimal, late PVP. Using this, we developed, by machine learning, a proprietary computer-aided quality-control algorithm to grade PVP timing. The reference standard was a computer-refined consensus. For each patient, we contoured target liver lesions and calculated their mean density.ResultsContrast-product administration data were not recorded in the digital imaging and communications in medicine headers for injection volume (94%), type (93%), and route (76%). The PVP timing was early, optimal, and late in 52, 194, and 45 patients, respectively. The mean (95% CI) accuracy of the radiologists for detection of optimal PVP timing was 81.7% (78.3 to 85.2) and was outperformed by the 88.6% (84.8 to 92.4) computer accuracy. The mean ± standard deviation of LM-CRC density was 68 ± 15 Hounsfield units (HU) overall and 59.5 ± 14.9 HU, 71.4 ± 14.1 HU, 62.4 ± 12.5 HU at early, optimal, and late PVP timing, respectively. LM-CRC density was thus decreased at nonoptimal PVP timing by 14.8%: 16.7% at early PVP ( P < .001) and 12.6% at late PVP ( P < .001).ConclusionNonoptimal PVP timing should be identified because it significantly decreased tumor density by 14.8%. Our computer-aided quality-control system outperformed the accuracy, reproducibility, and speed of radiologists' visual scoring. PVP-timing scoring could improve the extraction of tumor quantitative imaging biomarkers and the monitoring of anticancer therapy efficacy at the patient and clinical trial levels.

Dataset Information

Variability in assessing treatment response: metastatic colorectal cancer as a paradigm.

Publications

Variability in assessing treatment response: metastatic colorectal cancer as a paradigm.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets