Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]72874
• Clinical Article •
Tumor measurement methods in adult glioblastoma: comparison of linear and volumetric criteria
WANG Mei-yun  CHENG Jing-liang  SHI Da-peng 

DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8034.2010.04.008.


[Abstract] Objective: The changes in tumor size before and after treatment should be measured using volumetric or linear methods is not certain. We compared and analyzed the value of linear and volumetric measurements in evaluating tumor response in glioblastoma (GBM).Materials and Methods: Linear and volumetric measurements for tumor were performed on 112 MRI studies from 30 adult patients with GBM on post-contrast T1WI. Fifty-six pairs of MRI scans were analyzed for relative changes. Radiographic responses were determined based on changes in two methods respectively.Results: The correlation of tumor size measured by linear compared to volumetric method was good (P<0.001). Lower correlation was present when comparing percentage changes between pairs (n=56) (P<0.001). When these percentage changes were categorized into traditional tumor response criteria (complete response/partial response/stable disease/progression), 45 of 56 pairs were accordant and there was no significant difference between the two methods. A review of 11 discordant pairs suggested that the volumetric method was more accurate than linear method in 8 cases in assessing tumor response, while linear was better than volumetric method in 3 ones.Conclusion: Volumetric approach for measuring tumor response is more accurate than linear method in some special tumor lesions.
[Keywords] Glioblastoma；Photogrammetry；Magnetic resonance imaging；Comparative study

WANG Mei-yun Department of Radiology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou 450003, China

CHENG Jing-liang MRI Center, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China

SHI Da-peng* Department of Radiology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou 450003, China

*Correspondence to: Shi DP, E-mail: cjr.shidapeng@vip.163.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

Received  2010-03-01
Accepted  2010-04-13
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8034.2010.04.008
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8034.2010.04.008.

[1]
Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold SC Jr, et al. Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol, 1990, 8(7):1277-1280.
[2]
Hopper KD, Kasales CJ, Egglie KD, et alThe impact of 2D versus 3D quantitation of tumor bulk determination on current methods of assessing response to treatment. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 1996, 20(6): 930-937.
[3]
Van Hoe L, Van Cutsem E, Vergote I, et alSize quantification of liver metastases in patients undergoing cancer treatment: Reproducibility of one-, two-, and three-dimensional measurements determined with spiral CT. Radiology, 1997, 202(3):671-675.
[4]
Sohaib SA, Turner B, Hanson JA. CT assessment of tumor response to treatment: comparison of linear, cross-sectional and volumetric measures of tumour size. Br J Radiol, 2000, 73(875):1178-1184.
[5]
Dempsey MF, Condon BR, Hadley DM. Measurement of tumor "size" in recurrent malignant glioma: 1D, cross-sectional, or volumetric? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2005, 26(4):770-776.
[6]
Yankelevitz DF, Reeves AP, Kostis WJ, et al. Small pulmonary nodules: Volumetrically determined growth rates based on CT evaluation. Radiology, 2000, 217(1):251-256.
[7]
Sorensen AG, Patel S, Harmath C, et al. Comparison of diameter and perimeter methods for tumor volume calculation. J Clin Oncol, 2001, 19(2):551-557.
[8]
James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M, et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst, 1999, 91(6):523-528.
[9]
Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J. Natl Cancer Inst, 2000, 92(3):205-216.
[10]
Sorensen AG, Batchelor TT, Wen PY, et al. Response criteria for glioma. Nature Clin Pract Oncol, 2008, 5(11):634-644.
[11]
King AD, Zee B, Yuen EH, et al. Nasopharyngeal cancers: which method should be used to measure these irregularly shaped tumors on cross-sectional imaging? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2007, 69(1):148-154.
[12]
Eisenhauer EA. Response evaluation: beyond RECIST. Ann Oncol, 2007, 18 (Suppl 9): ix29-ix32.
[13]
Leach MO, Brindle KM, Evelhoch JL, et al. Assessment of antiangiogenic Ratain MJ, Eckhardt SG. Phase II studies of modern drugs directed against new targets: if you are fazed, too, then resist RECIST. J Clin Oncol, 2004, 22(22):4442-4445.
[14]
Batchelor TT, Sorensen AG, di Tomaso E, et al. AZD2171, a pan-VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, normalizes tumor vasculature and alleviates edema in glioblastoma patients. Cancer cell, 2007, 11(1):83-95.
[15]
Guerin C, Olivi A, Weingart JD, et al. Recent advances in brain tumor therapy: Local intracerebral drug delivery by polymers. Invest New Drugs, 2004, 22(1):27-37.
[16]
Shinoda J, Yano H, Ando H, et al. Rradiological response and histological changes in malignant astrocytic tumors after stereotactic radiosurgery. Brain Tumor Pathol, 2002, 19(2):83-92.

PREV Diffusion-weighted imaging in the detection and differentiation of prostate cancer
NEXT Comparison of free-breathing 3D coronary MR angiography using the volume-targeted and whole-heart methods
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn