Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Automated CT volumetry of pulmonary metastases: the effect of a reduced growth threshold and target lesion number on the reliability of therapy response assessment using RECIST criteria

  • Chest
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of CT-volumetric tumour response assessment of pulmonary metastasis using variable volume change thresholds (VCT) and target lesions with response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST). Fifty consecutive patients with pulmonary metastases undergoing follow-up multislice CT under chemotherapy were assessed for response to chemotherapy with modifications to RECIST: (1) decreasing the percentual VCT for diagnosis of tumour response (range = 70%–20%), (2) reducing the number of target lesions (range = 1–5). Continuous and categorical observer agreements were tested by Bland and Altman and extended (κe) or non-weighted kappa (κ) and correlated with percentual VCT to predict observer agreement. A total of 202 metastases were evaluated (average volume = 522.4 mm3±902.4 mm3). General agreement on treatment response was very high (κe = 0.93–1), but was reduced with VCT < 35% (κe < 0.95). Kappa correlation with VCT values was strong (r=0.94–0.96; p≤0.0002). Average confidence decreased significantly at VCT < 45% (p < 0.01) and agreement on stable disease at VCT < 35% (κe < 0.95; p < 0.01). Reduction of target lesions (n < 3; VCT = 35%) resulted in decreased reader confidence (for n = 1: κ = 0.49; p < 0.05). Agreement for evaluation of treatment response was robust using VCT ≥35% and ≥3 metastases. This may translate into shortening of follow-up intervals or enable for response assessment with tumours displaying minimal volume change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS et al (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205–216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Therasse P, Eiasenhauer EA, Verweij J (2006) RECIST revisited: a review Oberfeld validation studies on tumor assessment. Eur J Cancer 42:1031–1039

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hayes TG, Falchock GF, Varadhachary GR et al (2006) Phase I trial of oral talactoferrin alfa in refractory solid tumors. Invest New Drugs 24:233–240

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Husband JE, Schwartz LH, Spencer J et al (2004) Eavluation of the response to treatment of solid tumours-a consensus statement of the International Cancer Imaging Society. Brit J Cancer 90:2256–2260

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wormanns D, Kohl G, Klotz E et al (2004) Volumetric measurement of pulmonary nodules at multi-row detector CT: in vivo reproducibility. Eur Radiol 14:86–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marten K, Auer F, Schmidt S, Kohl G, Rummeny EJ, Engelke C (2006) Inadequacy of manual measurements compared to automated CT volumetry in assessment of treatment response of pulmonary metastases using RECIST criteria. Eur Radiol 16:781–790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tran LN, Brown MS, Goldin JG et al (2004) Comparison of treatment response classifications between unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric measurements of metastatic lung lesions on chest computed tomography. Acad Radiol 11:1355–1360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Marten K, Engelke C. Computer-aided detection and automated CT volumetry of pulmonary nodules. Eur Radiol 2006; DOI 10.1007/s00330-006-0410-3 [Epub ahead of print]

  9. Fan L, Qian J, Odry BL et al (2002) Automatic segmentation of pulmonary nodules by using dynamic cross-correlation for interactive CAD systems. In: Sonka M, Fitzpatrick JM (eds) Medical imaging: Image processing. Proc SPIE 4684:1362–1396

  10. Fleiss JL, Cuzick J (1979) The reliability of dichotomous judgements: unequal numbers of judges per subject. Appl Psychol Meas 3:537–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fleiss JL, Nee CM, Landis JR (1979) Large sample variance of kappa in the case of different sets of raters. Psychol Bull 86:974–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Landis JR, Koch G (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bland M, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing the difference between two methods of measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Maxwell AE (1970) Comparing the classification of subjects by two independent judges. Br J Psychiatry 116:651–655

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Thiesse P, Ollivier L, Di Stefano-Louineau D et al (1997) Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for interobserver variability. J Clin Oncol 15:3507–3514

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gwyther SJ, AApro MS, Hatty SR, Postmus PE, Smith IE (1999) Results of an independent oncology review board of pivotal clinical trials of gemcitabine in nonsmall cell lung cancer. Anticancer Drugs 10:693–698

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Biganzoli L, Lohrisch C, Paridaens R, Therasse P, Piccart M (2002) Analysis of tow EORTC trials in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) support the recommendation of external response review (ERR) in trials with response rate (RR) as primary endpoint. Eur J Cancer 36(Suppl. 5):S90

    Google Scholar 

  18. Watanabe H, Yamamoto S, Kunitoh H et al (2003) Tumor response to chemotherapy: the validity and reproducibility of RECIST guidelines in NSCLC patients. Cancer Sci 94:1015–1020

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, Sabloff BS, Truong MT, Herbst RS, Munden RF (2003) Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of nonsmall-cell carcinoma of the lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumour response. J Clin Oncol 21:2574–2582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Grossi F, Belvedere O, Fasola G et al (1999) Tumour measurements on computer tomographic images of non-small cell lung cancer were similar among cancer professionals from different specialities. J Clin Oncol 17:25–30

    Google Scholar 

  21. Yankelevitz DF, Gupta R, Zhao B, Henschke CI (2000) Small pulmonary nodules: volumetrically determined growth rates based on CT evaluation. Radiology 217:251–256

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kostis WJ, Yankelevitz DF, Reeves AP, Fluture SC, Henschke CI (2004) Small pulmonary nodules: reproducibility of three-dimensional volumetric measurement and estimation of time to follow-up CT. Radiology 231:446–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chojniak R, Younes RN (2003) Pulmonary metastases tumor doubling time: assessment by computed tomography. Am J Clin Oncol 26:374–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schwartz LH, Mazumdar M, Brown W, Smith A, Paniek DM (2003) Variability in response assessment in solid tumors: effect of number of lesions chosen for measurement. Clin Cancer Res 9:4318–4323

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schwartz M (1961) A biomathematical approach to clinical tumour growth. Cancer 14:1272–1294

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Zacharia TT, Saini S, Halpern EF, Sumner JE (2005) CT of colon cancer metastases to the liver using modified RECIST criteria: determining the ideal number of target lesions to measure. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1067–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ratain M (2004) Phase II studies of modern drugs directed against new targets: If you are fazed, too, then resist RECIST. J Clin Oncol 22:4442–4444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kernstine KH, Grannis FW Jr, Rotter AJ (2005) Is there a role for PET in the evaluation in subcentimeter pulmonary nodules? Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 17:110–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Josef-Schneider-Str. 2, 97080, Wuerzburg, Germany

    Katharina Marten & Christoph Engelke

  2. Department of Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaningerstr. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany

    Florian Auer, Stefan Schmidt & Ernst J. Rummeny

Authors
  1. Katharina Marten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florian Auer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ernst J. Rummeny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christoph Engelke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katharina Marten.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marten, K., Auer, F., Schmidt, S. et al. Automated CT volumetry of pulmonary metastases: the effect of a reduced growth threshold and target lesion number on the reliability of therapy response assessment using RECIST criteria. Eur Radiol 17, 2561–2571 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0642-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0642-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation