HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2252011604v1 225/2/416    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Prasad, S. R. Articles by Sumner, J. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Prasad, S. R. Articles by Sumner, J. E.

CT Tumor Measurement for Therapeutic Response Assessment: Comparison of Unidimensional, Bidimensional, and Volumetric Techniques—Initial Observations¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 32 Fruit St, White 270-E, Boston, MA 02114 (S.R.P., K.S.J., S.S., P.F.H., E.F.H.); and WorldCare, Cambridge, Mass (J.E.S). Received September 28, 2001; revision requested December 5; revision received February 7, 2002; accepted April 15. Address correspondence to S.S. (e-mail: ssaini@partners.org).

PURPOSE: To compare unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques for evaluation of treatment response in patients with liver metastases from breast cancer in a phase III clinical trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Helical computed tomographic (CT) studies in 38 patients with liver metastases from breast cancer who were enrolled in a phase III clinical trial were evaluated before treatment and at 6 months after treatment. Two subspecialty radiologists measured all lesions on transverse CT scans with use of electronic calipers according to both unidimensional and bidimensional criteria. Volumetric measurements were made by tracing individual lesions. Measurements of individual lesions were summed to obtain patient response, which was categorized as complete response, disappearance of lesions; partial response, greater than 30% decrease in tumor diameter (unidimensional), greater than 50% reduction in tumor area (bidimensional), or greater than 65% reduction in tumor volume (volumetric); disease progression, greater than 20% increase in tumor diameter, greater than 25% increase in tumor area, or greater than 73% increase in tumor volume: or stable disease (size response other than that of complete response, partial response, or disease progression).

RESULTS: In 37 patients, there was concordant treatment response with use of unidimensional and bidimensional techniques. Volumetric measurement produced results different from those of the unidimensional and bidimensional techniques in 12 and 13 patients, respectively. In six patients with partial response per unidimensional and bidimensional criteria, the response based on the volumetric technique was stable disease. In two patients with stable disease per bidimensional and unidimensional criteria, the response was partial response by volumetric measurement. In four patients with disease progression per bidimensional and unidimensional criteria, the response was stable disease per volumetric criteria.

CONCLUSION: Volumetric measurement of tumor burden gives different results for treatment response compared with that of the unidimensional or bidimensional technique in a considerable proportion of patients.

© RSNA, 2002

Index terms: Breast neoplasms, metastases, 761.3320 • Liver neoplasms, CT, 761.12115 • Liver neoplasms, secondary, 761.332 • Liver neoplasms, staging • Liver neoplasms, therapy

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Suzuki, H. Jacobsson, T. Hatschek, M. R. Torkzad, K. Boden, Y. Eriksson-Alm, E. Berg, H. Fujii, A. Kubo, and L. Blomqvist Radiologic Measurements of Tumor Response to Treatment: Practical Approaches and Limitations RadioGraphics, March 1, 2008; 28(2): 329 - 344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. M. Stadler Tumor Burden Endpoints and Phase II Clinical Trial Design ASCO Educational Book, January 1, 2008; 2008(1): 89 - 93. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. C. Jaffe Measures of Response: RECIST, WHO, and New Alternatives J. Clin. Oncol., July 10, 2006; 24(20): 3245 - 3251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. A. Mayr, W. T. C. Yuh, T. Taoka, J. Z. Wang, D. H. Wu, J. F. Montebello, S. L. Meeks, A. C. Paulino, V. A. Magnotta, M. Adli, et al. Serial therapy-induced changes in tumor shape in cervical cancer and their impact on assessing tumor volume and treatment response. Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2006; 187(1): 65 - 72. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. J. Pickhardt, V. T. Lehman, T. C. Winter, and A. J. Taylor Polyp volume versus linear size measurements at CT colonography: implications for noninvasive surveillance of unresected colorectal lesions. Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2006; 186(6): 1605 - 1610. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. Petraitis, R. Petraitiene, J. Solomon, A. M. Kelaher, H. A. Murray, C. Mya-San, A. K. Bhandary, T. Sein, N. A. Avila, A. Basevicius, et al. Multidimensional volumetric imaging of pulmonary infiltrates for measuring therapeutic response to antifungal therapy in experimental invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., April 1, 2006; 50(4): 1510 - 1517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. T. Zacharia, S. Saini, E. F. Halpern, and J. E. Sumner CT of Colon Cancer Metastases to the Liver Using Modified RECIST Criteria: Determining the Ideal Number of Target Lesions to Measure. Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2006; 186(4): 1067 - 1070. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. W. Farraher, H. Jara, K. J. Chang, A. Hou, and J. A. Soto Liver and Spleen Volumetry with Quantitative MR Imaging and Dual-Space Clustering Segmentation Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 322 - 328. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. R. Aberle, C. Chiles, C. Gatsonis, B. J. Hillman, C. D. Johnson, B. L. McClennan, D. G. Mitchell, E. D. Pisano, M. D. Schnall, and A. G. Sorensen Imaging and Cancer: Research Strategy of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Radiology, June 1, 2005; 235(3): 741 - 751. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Shankar, E. vanSonnenberg, J. Desai, P. J. DiPiro, A. Van Den Abbeele, and G. D. Demetri Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: New Nodule-within-a-Mass Pattern of Recurrence after Partial Response to Imatinib Mesylate Radiology, June 1, 2005; 235(3): 892 - 898. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Luccichenti, F. Cademartiri, M. Sianesi, L. Roncoroni, P. Pavone, and G. P. Krestin Radiologic Assessment of Rectosigmoid Cancer Before and After Neoadjuvant Radiation Therapy: Comparison Between Quantitation Techniques Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2005; 184(2): 526 - 530. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. H. Schwartz, M. Mazumdar, W. Brown, A. Smith, and D. M. Panicek Variability in Response Assessment in Solid Tumors: Effect of Number of Lesions Chosen for Measurement Clin. Cancer Res., October 1, 2003; 9(12): 4318 - 4323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]