medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán

2015, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Invest Clin 2015; 67 (3)

Assessment of the Usefulness of the Quantitative Methods for the Response Evaluation of Solid Tumors: Analysis Using Four Cancer Types

Canals-Lambarri M, Canals-Cifuentes A, Barros-Rocco A, Barros-Nelson P, Mahave-Caceres M, Salman-Boghikian P

Language: English
References: 20
Page: 182-190
PDF size: 224.63 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: The evidence provided by medical imaging techniques for the staging and follow-up is relevant in oncology. Objectives: The aims were (i) to compare the monitoring methods, (ii) to analyze the response variability between different tumors, and (iii) to decipher a general response curve that is independent of tumor type and drug treatment. Methods: We analyzed the response variability in four cancer types, looking for a general response curve independent of the tumor type and drug treatment. We compared the response of different types of lesions within each cancer type via an intra-class correlation coefficient, determining the minimum number of lesions suitable for monitoring. Results: The tested metrics allowed an objective evaluation of the response of solid tumors. The response was homogeneous between different cancer types. The intra-class correlation was high, allowing the monitoring of the response with a low number of lesions (2-4). The currently used metrics misrepresent the changes in the lesion volumes. Indeed, we observed non-linear overestimations of the RECIST and WHO values, which were more pronounced for the intermediate values. Additionally, the inclusion of lymphadenopathy among the target lesions produced a distortion in the evaluation of the response. Conclusion: The quantitative counts allowed an objective evaluation of the response of the solid tumors to therapy, showing that the response was homogeneous but variable between different types of tumors. Although the currently used metrics lead to misrepresentations of the changes in the lesion volume, they allowed setting a response pattern for tracking these lesions.


REFERENCES

  1. Suzuki C, Jacobson H, Hatschek T, et al. Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: practical approaches and limitations. Radiographics. 2008;28:329-44.

  2. World Health Organization. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who. int/publications/9241700483.pdf.

  3. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment on Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205-16.

  4. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J. RECIST revisited: A review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:1031-9.

  5. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228-47.

  6. Van Persijn Van Meerten EL, Gelderblom H, Bloem JL. RECIST revised: implications for the radiologist. A review article on the modified RECIST guideline. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:1456-67.

  7. Canals M, Fernández M, Barros A, Barros P, Salman P, Mahave M. Buscando una curva general de respuesta a la quimioterapia basado en la evaluación radiológica con criterio RECIST. Rev Chil Radiol. 2009;15:1-4.

  8. James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M, et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:523-8.

  9. Dacchman AH, MacEneaney PM, Adedipe A, Carlin M, Schumm LP. Tumor size on computed tomography scans: is one measurement enough? Cancer. 2001:91:555-60.

  10. Warren KE, Patronas N, Aikin AA, Albert PS, Balis FM. Comparison of one-, two-, and three-dimensional measurements of childhood brain tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:1401-5.

  11. Mazumdar M, Smith A, Schwartz LH. A statistical simulation study finds discordance between WHO criteria and RECIST guideline. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:358-65.

  12. Zacharia TT, Saini S, Halpern EF, Sumner JE. CT of colon cancer metastases to the liver using modified RECIST criteria: determining the ideal number of target lesions to measure. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:1067-70.

  13. Hillman SL, Ming-Wen A, O’Connell MJ, et al. Evaluation of the optimal number of lesions needed for tumor evaluation using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors: A North Central Cancer Treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3205-10.

  14. Gonen M, Schwartz L, Ford R. Evaluation of number of target lesions to analyze in time to progression by RECIST. ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition). J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:6549.

  15. Mazumdar M, Smith A, Debroy PP, Schwartz LH. A theoretical approach to choosing the minimum number of multiple tumors required for assessing treatment response. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:150-3.

  16. Suzuki C, Blomquist L, Sundin A, et al. The initial change in tumor size predicts response and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with combination chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:948-54.

  17. Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in Medicine: The analysis of method comparison studies. The Statistician 1983; 32: 307-317.

  18. Rencher AC. Methods in Multivariate Analysis, 2nd Ed. New York: Wiley Interscience. J Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002.

  19. Bushong SC. Radiobiología molecular y celular. In Bushong SC, editor. Manual de Radiología para Técnicos. Madrid: Esxta Ed. Harcourt Brace, 1998:449-63.

  20. Moskowitz C, Jia X, Schwartz L, Gonen M. A simulation study to evaluate the impact of the number of lesions measured on response assessment. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:300-10.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com