Annals of Oncology Advance Access published online on April 26, 2006
Annals of Oncology, doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl058
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Background: Accurate response assessment is essential for evaluating new cancer treatments. We evaluated the impact of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), World Health Organization (WHO) criteria and tumor shape on response assessment in patients with metastatic esophageal cancer. Patients and methods: In 19 patients with metastatic esophageal cancer in a phase II trial of bryostatin-1 and paclitaxel, response was retrospectively assessed for 89 lesions with RECIST and WHO criteria on baseline and serial follow-up CT scans. The eccentricity factor (EF) was introduced for measuring the degree to which tumor shape diverges from a perfect sphere [EF = Results: The disagreement rate in best overall response categorization between RECIST (unidimensional) and WHO (bidimensional) criteria was 26.3%. Change in eccentricity was significantly greater (P < 0.01) for patients with disagreement (mean 0.31, range 0-0.91). When the short axis was used for unidimensional lymph node measurement, disagreement between WHO and RECIST lessened. Conclusions: Response assessment by WHO and RECIST differs substantially. Greater change in eccentricity is associated with greater discordance between WHO and RECIST. The discordance between WHO and RECIST may impact on how effective a therapy is judged to be.
Received December 23, 2005
Revised February 17, 2006
Accepted February 20, 2006
original article
Measuring tumor response and shape change on CT: esophageal cancer as a paradigm
L. H. Schwartz 1,
J. A. C. Colville 1,
M. S. Ginsberg 1,
L. Wang 1,
M. Mazumdar 2,
J. Kalaigian 1,
H. Hricak 1,
D. Ilson 3,
and
G. K. Schwartz 3 *
2 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
3 Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
G. K. Schwartz, E-mail: schwartg{at}mskcc.org
Abstract 
1-(LPD/MD)2, where LPD is the largest perpendicular diameter and MD is the maximal diameter].
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. Zhao, L. P. James, C. S. Moskowitz, P. Guo, M. S. Ginsberg, R. A. Lefkowitz, Y. Qin, G. J. Riely, M. G. Kris, and L. H. Schwartz Evaluating Variability in Tumor Measurements from Same-day Repeat CT Scans of Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Radiology, July 1, 2009; 252(1): 263 - 272. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. Zhao, L. H. Schwartz, and S. M. Larson Imaging Surrogates of Tumor Response to Therapy: Anatomic and Functional Biomarkers J. Nucl. Med., February 1, 2009; 50(2): 239 - 249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. J. Crabb, D. Patsios, E. Sauerbrei, P. M. Ellis, A. Arnold, G. Goss, N. B. Leighl, F. A. Shepherd, J. Powers, L. Seymour, et al. Tumor Cavitation: Impact on Objective Response Evaluation in Trials of Angiogenesis Inhibitors in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., January 20, 2009; 27(3): 404 - 410. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|