Abstract
The primary objective of this study is to determine whether the conventionally utilized “gold standard” methodology of bidimensional product is reproducible for the purpose of ascertaining response to treatment in CNS neoplasms. Secondary objectives include testing of volumetric methods for response analysis and examining the variability due to tumor pathology, observer, and other factors. Twenty-five patients with brain metastases (evaluated by serial CT) and 16 patients with glioblastoma multiforme (evaluated by serial MRI) were the subjects of this study. The images were reviewed independently by 5 observers and analyzed subjectively, bidimensionally, tridimensionally, and volumetrically, using an NIH-developed software tool, NIH Image. Volume proved to be the most precise measurement technique. Interobserver reproducibility for volume measurements was superior to that of all other methods tested, with the range of correlation coefficients being: bidimensional product = .88–.98, area = .94–.99, tridimensional product = .75–.99, and volume = .96–1.00. Misclassification in tumor response rates was lowest for volume measurements (mean = .23, range = .20–.27) and highest for bidimensional product (mean = .39, range = .34–.44). Volume derived from CT or MRI is a more precise measure of tumor size, yielding consistently lower misclassification rates than traditional bidimensional product or cross-sectional area. This superiority holds irrespective of pathology, tumor size, or observer.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Levin VA, Crafts DC, Norman DM, et al.: Criteria for evaluating patients undergoing chemotherapy for malignant brain tumors. J Neurosurg 47:329–335, 1977
MacDonald D, Cascino T, Schold C, et al.: Response criteria for Phase II studies of supratentorial glioblastoma multiforme. J Clin Oncol 8:1277–1280, 1990
Chisholm R, Stenning S, Hawkins T: The accuracy of volumetric measurement of high-grade gliomas. Clin Radiol 40:17–41, 1989
Kretzschmar K, Schicketanz KH: Measurements of the volume and density of intracerebral tumors by CT following therapy. Neuroradiology 23:175–184, 1982
Quivey JM, Castro JR, Chen GTY, et al.: Computerized tomography in the quantitative assessment of tumour response. Br J Cancer 41:30–34, 1980
Riding MD, Gerig LH, Girard A, et al.: Multivolumetric analysis of CT scans on patients with glioma. Acta Radiologica Suppl 369:216–219, 1986
Van Hoe L, Van Cutsem E, Vergote I, et al.: Size quantification of liver metastases in patients undergoing cancer treatment: Reproducibility of uni-, bi-, and three-dimensional measurements determined by spiral CT. Radiology 202:671–675, 1997
Thompson D: On Growth and Form, abridged edition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1961
Chappell RJ, Miranpuri SS, Mehta MP: The importance of dimension in defining tumor response. J Clin Oncol 16:1234, 1998
Mudholkar GS: Fisher's z-Transformation. In Kotz S, Johnson NL (eds), Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, vol.3. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983, pp. 130–135
Somes GW: McNemar statistic. In Kotz, S, Johnson, NL (eds), Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, vol.5. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1985, pp. 361–363
Grossman SA, Wharam M, Sheidler V, et al.: Phase II study of continuous infusion carmustine and cisplatin followed by cranial irradiation in adults with newly diagnosed high-grade astrocytoma. J Clin Oncol 15:2596–2603, 1997
Bauman G, Pahapill P, Macdonald D, et al.: Low grade glioma: A measuring radiographic response to radiotherapy. Can J Neurol Sci (in press)
Gurland J, Johnson RO: How reliable are tumor measurements? JAMA 194:125–130, 1965
Staron RB, Ford E: Computed tomographic volumetric calculation reproducibility. Invest Radiol 21:272–274, 1986
Hermans R, Freon M, Bellon E, et al.: Laryngeal tumor volume measurements determined with CT: A study on intra-and inter-observer variability. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 40:553–557, 1998
Mehta MP: The physical, biologic, and clinical basis of radiosurgery. Curr Problems in Cancer 19:314–315, 1995
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miranpuri, S.S., Schulz, C.A., Chappell, R.J. et al. Comparison of Methods for Response Analysis of Central Nervous System Neoplasms. Journal of Radiosurgery 2, 153–161 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022970730375
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022970730375