Advertisement

Der Radiologe

, Volume 48, Issue 9, pp 850–856 | Cite as

Volumetrie von Metastasen beim Nierenzellkarzinom

Vergleich mit den RECIST-Kriterien
  • A. Graser
  • C.R. Becker
  • M.F. Reiser
  • C. Stief
  • M. Staehler
Leitthema

Zusammenfassung

Bei Patienten mit metastasiertem Nierenzellkarzinom werden an die Bildgebung besondere Anforderungen gestellt. Die Therapie beruht heute in den meisten Fällen auf antiangiogenetischen Wirkstoffen, die im Verlauf teils zu relativ geringen Größenänderungen von Läsionen führen. Daher sind die oftmals verwendeten RECIST-Kriterien („response evaluation criteria in solid tumors“) bei der Beurteilung des Therapieansprechens als ungenau anzusehen. In diesem Artikel wird ein Überblick über neue, softwarebasierte volumetrische Methoden gegeben, die es ermöglichen, therapieinduzierte Größenänderungen von Metastasen beim Nierenzellkarzinom mit höherer Sensitivität und Reproduzierbarkeit zu detektieren. Anhand eigener Daten wird ein Vergleich von RECIST und Volumetrie bei Patienten mit metastasiertem Nierenzellkarzinom durchgeführt und die höhere Sensitivität des automatisierten Verfahrens gezeigt.

Schlüsselwörter

Nierenzellkarzinom Antiangiogenetische Wirkstoffe RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors) Volumetrische Methoden 

Volumetry of metastases from renal cell carcinoma

Comparison with the RECIST criteria

Abstract

For patients with metastasized renal cell carcinoma (RCC), imaging techniques are of great importance. Currently, therapy widely relies on antiangiogenic factors, which frequently lead to relatively subtle changes in the size of lesions. From this aspect the commonly used RECIST criteria (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors) must be considered as imprecise for the evaluation of the response to therapy. This article gives a review on new software-based volumetric methods, which allow therapy-induced changes in the size of metastases from RCC to be detected with higher sensitivity and reproducibility. A comparison of RECIST and volumetry was carried out with data from patients with metastasized RCC to demonstrate the higher sensitivity of the 3D volumetric procedure.

Keywords

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) Antiangiogenic factors RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors) Volumetric methods 

Notes

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E et al. (2008) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 58(2): 71–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Russo P (2001) Localized renal cell carcinoma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2(5): 447–455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Margulis V, Sanchez-Ortiz RF, Tamboli P et al. (2007) Renal cell carcinoma clinically involving adjacent organs: experience with aggressive surgical management. Cancer 109(10): 2025–2030PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thiesse P, Ollivier L, Di Stefano-Louineau D et al. (1997) Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for interobserver variability. Groupe francais d’Immunotherapie of the federation nationale des centres de lutte contre le cancer. J Clin Oncol 15(12): 3507–3514PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Negrier S, Ollivier L, Di Stefano-Louineau D et al. (2000) Reliability of the response rate in oncology: analysis of the causes for variation. Bull Cancer 87(12): 927–934PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coppin C (2008) Immunotherapy for renal cell cancer in the era of targeted therapy. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 8(6): 907–919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Motzer RJ, Hoosen S, Bello CL, Christensen JG (2006) Sunitinib malate for the treatment of solid tumours: a review of current clinical data. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 15(5): 553–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Merseburger AS, Kuczyk MA (2008) Value of targeted therapies for renal cell cancer. Urologe A, epub ahead of printGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hudes G, Carducci M, Tomczak P et al. (2007) Temsirolimus, interferon alfa, or both for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 356(22): 2271–2281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P et al. (2007) Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 356(2): 115–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yang JC, Haworth L, Sherry RM et al. (2003) A randomized trial of bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody, for metastatic renal cancer. N Engl J Med 349(5): 427–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Escudier B, Pluzanska A, Koralewski P et al. (2007) Bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, double-blind phase III trial. Lancet 370(9605): 2103–2111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gore ME, Escudier B (2006) Emerging efficacy endpoints for targeted therapies in advanced renal cell carcinoma. Oncology (Williston Park) 20(6) [suppl 5]: 19–24Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ljungberg B, Hanbury DC, Kuczyk MA et al. (2007) Renal cell carcinoma guideline. Eur Urol 51(6): 1502–1510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flanigan RC, Campbell SC, Clark JI, Picken MM (2003) Metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 4(5): 385–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mecho S, Quiroga S, Cuellar H, Sebastia C (2008) Pancreatic metastasis of renal cell carcinoma: multidetector CT findings. Abdom Imaging, epub ahead of printGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mickisch GH, Garin A, van Poppel H et al. (2001) Radical nephrectomy plus interferon-alfa-based immunotherapy compared with interferon alfa alone in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised trial. Lancet 358(9286): 966–970PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sandhu SS, Symes A, A’Hern R et al. (2005) Surgical excision of isolated renal-bed recurrence after radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 95(4): 522–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al. (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(3): 205–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Husband JE, Schwartz LH, Spencer J et al. (2004) Evaluation of the response to treatment of solid tumours – a consensus statement of the International Cancer Imaging Society. Br J Cancer 90(12): 2256–2260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Padhani AR, Ollivier L (2001) The RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria: implications for diagnostic radiologists. Br J Radiol 74(887): 983–986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Park JO, Lee SI, Song SY et al. (2003) Measuring response in solid tumors: comparison of RECIST and WHO response criteria. Jpn J Clin Oncol 33(10): 533–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Das M, Muhlenbruch G, Katoh M et al. (2007) Automated volumetry of solid pulmonary nodules in a phantom: accuracy across different CT scanner technologies. Invest Radiol 42(5): 297–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Das M, Ley-Zaporozhan J, Gietema HA et al. (2007) Accuracy of automated volumetry of pulmonary nodules across different multislice CT scanners. Eur Radiol 17(8): 1979–1984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mahr A, Levegrun S, Bahner ML et al. (1999) Usability of semiautomatic segmentation algorithms for tumor volume determination. Invest Radiol 34(2): 143–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heussel CP, Meier S, Wittelsberger S et al. (2007) Follow-up CT measurement of liver malignoma according to RECIST and WHO vs. volumetry. Rofo 179(9): 958–964PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meier S, Schenk A, Mildenberger P et al. (2004) Evaluation of a new software tool for the automatic volume calculation of hepatic tumors. First results. Rofo 176(2): 234–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fabel M, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Giesel FL et al. (2008) Semi-automated volumetric analysis of lymph node metastases in patients with malignant melanoma stage III/IV – a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 18(6): 1114–1122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Graser A, Heuck AF, Sommer B et al. (2006) MRI-based PSA density and PSA density of the transitional zone compared with PSA alone: correlation with prostate cancer Gleason score. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30(6): 891–895PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Prasad SR, Jhaveri KS, Saini S (2002) CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional and volumetric techniques initial observations. Radiology 225(2): 416–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Graser A et al. (2007) RSNA Annual Meeting, Chicago, 24.11.–1.12. 2007. RSNA programme, p 250, SSA 07–08Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Graser
    • 1
  • C.R. Becker
    • 1
  • M.F. Reiser
    • 1
  • C. Stief
    • 2
  • M. Staehler
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für Klinische RadiologieKlinikum Großhadern der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMünchenDeutschland
  2. 2.Klinik und Poliklinik für UrologieKlinikum Großhadern der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMünchenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations