Radiological measurement of breast cancer metastases to lung and liver: Comparison between WHO (bidimensional) and RECIST (unidimensional) guidelines

Srinivasa R. Prasad, Sanjay Saini, James E. Sumner, Peter F. Hahn, Dushyant Sahani, Giles W. Boland

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

41 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Radiologic assessment of "response-to-treatment" during clinical trials of anticancer drugs has been conventionally based on bidirectional tumor measurement. Recently, the revised guidelines were published, which recommended unidirectional tumor measurements. The purpose of this study was to compare response to treatment between the two measurement techniques in breast cancer patients with lung and liver metastases. Method: Contrast-enhanced computed tomography studies of 86 breast cancer patients who had lung (n = 27) and liver (n = 59) metastases and who were enrolled in a phase-III oncology trial were evaluated before initiation of treatment and at 6 months after treatment. Lesions were measured by subspecialist radiologists on digitized images using electronic calipers. The largest diameter of the lesions was extracted from bidimensional measurements. Response to treatment was categorized into one of four categories: complete response indicating lesion disappearance, partial response indicating >30% decrease in tumor diameter, or >50% reduction in tumor area, disease progression indicating >20% increase in tumor diameter, or >25% increase in tumor area, and stable disease (neither complete response, partial response, nor disease progression). Response to treatment between the two measurement techniques was compared statistically using the χ2 test. Results: Response to treatment was concordant in 76 patients between unidimensional and bidimensional measurement techniques. In 5 patients (2 lung and 3 liver metastases) the response assessment was improved using unidimensional criteria and in 5 patients (2 lung and 3 liver metastases) the response was worse using unidimensional guidelines. Thus, the overall response rate was 50% for both unidimensional and bidimensional measurement techniques. There was no statistical difference between the two techniques. Conclusion: Unidimensional measurements are appropriate for measuring the size of liver and lung metastases for determining response to treatment during clinical testing of oncologic drugs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)380-384
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of computer assisted tomography
Volume27
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2003

Fingerprint

Guidelines
Breast Neoplasms
Neoplasm Metastasis
Lung
Liver
Neoplasms
Therapeutics
Disease Progression
Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Tomography
Clinical Trials

Keywords

  • Comparative studies
  • Computed tomography
  • Treatment response
  • Tumor measurements

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Radiological measurement of breast cancer metastases to lung and liver : Comparison between WHO (bidimensional) and RECIST (unidimensional) guidelines. / Prasad, Srinivasa R.; Saini, Sanjay; Sumner, James E.; Hahn, Peter F.; Sahani, Dushyant; Boland, Giles W.

In: Journal of computer assisted tomography, Vol. 27, No. 3, 01.05.2003, p. 380-384.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fa35cff1212f47168d9b3aa3f4f6efca,
title = "Radiological measurement of breast cancer metastases to lung and liver: Comparison between WHO (bidimensional) and RECIST (unidimensional) guidelines",
abstract = "Purpose: Radiologic assessment of {"}response-to-treatment{"} during clinical trials of anticancer drugs has been conventionally based on bidirectional tumor measurement. Recently, the revised guidelines were published, which recommended unidirectional tumor measurements. The purpose of this study was to compare response to treatment between the two measurement techniques in breast cancer patients with lung and liver metastases. Method: Contrast-enhanced computed tomography studies of 86 breast cancer patients who had lung (n = 27) and liver (n = 59) metastases and who were enrolled in a phase-III oncology trial were evaluated before initiation of treatment and at 6 months after treatment. Lesions were measured by subspecialist radiologists on digitized images using electronic calipers. The largest diameter of the lesions was extracted from bidimensional measurements. Response to treatment was categorized into one of four categories: complete response indicating lesion disappearance, partial response indicating >30{\%} decrease in tumor diameter, or >50{\%} reduction in tumor area, disease progression indicating >20{\%} increase in tumor diameter, or >25{\%} increase in tumor area, and stable disease (neither complete response, partial response, nor disease progression). Response to treatment between the two measurement techniques was compared statistically using the χ2 test. Results: Response to treatment was concordant in 76 patients between unidimensional and bidimensional measurement techniques. In 5 patients (2 lung and 3 liver metastases) the response assessment was improved using unidimensional criteria and in 5 patients (2 lung and 3 liver metastases) the response was worse using unidimensional guidelines. Thus, the overall response rate was 50{\%} for both unidimensional and bidimensional measurement techniques. There was no statistical difference between the two techniques. Conclusion: Unidimensional measurements are appropriate for measuring the size of liver and lung metastases for determining response to treatment during clinical testing of oncologic drugs.",
keywords = "Comparative studies, Computed tomography, Treatment response, Tumor measurements",
author = "Prasad, {Srinivasa R.} and Sanjay Saini and Sumner, {James E.} and Hahn, {Peter F.} and Dushyant Sahani and Boland, {Giles W.}",
year = "2003",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/00004728-200305000-00014",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "380--384",
journal = "Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography",
issn = "0363-8715",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Radiological measurement of breast cancer metastases to lung and liver

T2 - Comparison between WHO (bidimensional) and RECIST (unidimensional) guidelines

AU - Prasad, Srinivasa R.

AU - Saini, Sanjay

AU - Sumner, James E.

AU - Hahn, Peter F.

AU - Sahani, Dushyant

AU - Boland, Giles W.

PY - 2003/5/1

Y1 - 2003/5/1

N2 - Purpose: Radiologic assessment of "response-to-treatment" during clinical trials of anticancer drugs has been conventionally based on bidirectional tumor measurement. Recently, the revised guidelines were published, which recommended unidirectional tumor measurements. The purpose of this study was to compare response to treatment between the two measurement techniques in breast cancer patients with lung and liver metastases. Method: Contrast-enhanced computed tomography studies of 86 breast cancer patients who had lung (n = 27) and liver (n = 59) metastases and who were enrolled in a phase-III oncology trial were evaluated before initiation of treatment and at 6 months after treatment. Lesions were measured by subspecialist radiologists on digitized images using electronic calipers. The largest diameter of the lesions was extracted from bidimensional measurements. Response to treatment was categorized into one of four categories: complete response indicating lesion disappearance, partial response indicating >30% decrease in tumor diameter, or >50% reduction in tumor area, disease progression indicating >20% increase in tumor diameter, or >25% increase in tumor area, and stable disease (neither complete response, partial response, nor disease progression). Response to treatment between the two measurement techniques was compared statistically using the χ2 test. Results: Response to treatment was concordant in 76 patients between unidimensional and bidimensional measurement techniques. In 5 patients (2 lung and 3 liver metastases) the response assessment was improved using unidimensional criteria and in 5 patients (2 lung and 3 liver metastases) the response was worse using unidimensional guidelines. Thus, the overall response rate was 50% for both unidimensional and bidimensional measurement techniques. There was no statistical difference between the two techniques. Conclusion: Unidimensional measurements are appropriate for measuring the size of liver and lung metastases for determining response to treatment during clinical testing of oncologic drugs.

AB - Purpose: Radiologic assessment of "response-to-treatment" during clinical trials of anticancer drugs has been conventionally based on bidirectional tumor measurement. Recently, the revised guidelines were published, which recommended unidirectional tumor measurements. The purpose of this study was to compare response to treatment between the two measurement techniques in breast cancer patients with lung and liver metastases. Method: Contrast-enhanced computed tomography studies of 86 breast cancer patients who had lung (n = 27) and liver (n = 59) metastases and who were enrolled in a phase-III oncology trial were evaluated before initiation of treatment and at 6 months after treatment. Lesions were measured by subspecialist radiologists on digitized images using electronic calipers. The largest diameter of the lesions was extracted from bidimensional measurements. Response to treatment was categorized into one of four categories: complete response indicating lesion disappearance, partial response indicating >30% decrease in tumor diameter, or >50% reduction in tumor area, disease progression indicating >20% increase in tumor diameter, or >25% increase in tumor area, and stable disease (neither complete response, partial response, nor disease progression). Response to treatment between the two measurement techniques was compared statistically using the χ2 test. Results: Response to treatment was concordant in 76 patients between unidimensional and bidimensional measurement techniques. In 5 patients (2 lung and 3 liver metastases) the response assessment was improved using unidimensional criteria and in 5 patients (2 lung and 3 liver metastases) the response was worse using unidimensional guidelines. Thus, the overall response rate was 50% for both unidimensional and bidimensional measurement techniques. There was no statistical difference between the two techniques. Conclusion: Unidimensional measurements are appropriate for measuring the size of liver and lung metastases for determining response to treatment during clinical testing of oncologic drugs.

KW - Comparative studies

KW - Computed tomography

KW - Treatment response

KW - Tumor measurements

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0038417130&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0038417130&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00004728-200305000-00014

DO - 10.1097/00004728-200305000-00014

M3 - Article

C2 - 12794603

AN - SCOPUS:0038417130

VL - 27

SP - 380

EP - 384

JO - Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

JF - Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

SN - 0363-8715

IS - 3

ER -