Suitability of Semi-Automated Tumor Response Assessment of Liver Metastases using a Dedicated Software Package

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Ziel war es, den Nutzen einer Software für die semiautomatische Beurteilung des Tumoransprechens (tumor response assessment, TRA) von Lebermetastasen im Vergleich zur manuellen Methode auszuwerten. Material und Methoden: Insgesamt wurden 32 Patienten mit hepatisch metastasiertem kolorektalem Karzinom durch im Mittel 2,8 CT-Untersuchungen mit Kontrastmittel kontrolliert. Zwei Radiologen (O1, O 2) bestimmten den Längsdurchmesser (LD) von 96 Metastasen im Verlauf manuell sowie semiautomatisch durch die mit dem PACS verknüpfte Software (LMS-Liver, MEDIAN Technologies). LD und TRA („progressive”, „stable”, „partial remission”) wurden in Anlehnung an RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) ermittelt und hinsichtlich Variabilität zwischen den Methoden, Inter- und Intraobservervariabilität untersucht. Die benötigte Zeit für die Evaluation des TRA wurde zwischen den Methoden verglichen. Ergebnisse: Insgesamt korrelierten die LD-Messungen exzellent (r ≥ 0,96). Der Intraobserver- (semiautomatisch), Interobserver- (manuell) sowie Methodenvergleich (durch O 1) ergab bei mittleren Differenzen von 1,4 ± 2,6 mm, 1,9 ± 1,9 mm bzw. 2,1 ± 2,0 mm keine signifikante Variabilität. Im Interobserver- (semiautomatisch) sowie Methodenvergleich (durch O 2) reflektierten die LD-Differenzen von im Mittel 3,0 ± 3,0 mm bzw. 2,6 ± 2,0 mm eine signifikante Variabilität (p < 0,01). Manuelle und semiautomatische TRA stimmten zwischen den Beobachtern in 91,4 % und im Intraobserververgleich (semiautomatisch) in 84,5 % überein. Zwischen den Methoden stimmte das TRA in je 86,2 % überein. Die semiautomatische (2,7 min.) dauerte etwas länger als die manuelle Auswertung (2,3 min). Schlussfolgerung: Semiautomatische und manuelle Auswertung erlauben eine vergleichbar gute Einschätzung des Tumoransprechens von Lebermetastasen und erfordern einen ähnlichen Aufwand.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the suitability of semi-automated compared to manual tumor response assessment (TRA) of liver metastases. Materials and Methods: In total, 32 patients with colorectal cancer and liver metastases were followed by an average of 2.8 contrast-enhanced CT scans. Two observers (O1, O 2) measured the longest diameter (LD) of 269 liver metastases manually and semi-automatically using software installed as thin-client on a PACS workstation (LMS-Liver, MEDIAN Technologies). LD and TRA (”progressive”, ”stable”, ”partial remission”) were performed according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) and analyzed for between-method, interobserver and intraobserver variability. The time needed for evaluation was compared for both methods. Results: All measurements correlated excellently (r ≥ 0.96). Intraobserver (semi-automated), interobserver (manual) and between-method differences (by O 1) in LD of 1.4 ± 2.6 mm, 1.9 ± 1.9 mm and 2.1 ± 2.0 mm, respectively, were not significant. Interobserver (semi-automated) and between-method (by O 2) differences in LD of 3.0 ± 3.0 mm and 2.6 ± 2.0 mm, respectively, reflected a significant variability (p < 0.01). The interobserver agreement in manual and semi-automated TRA was 91.4 %. The intraobserver agreement in semi-automated TRA was 84.5 %. Between both methods a TRA agreement of 86.2 % was obtained. Semi-automated evaluation (2.7 min) took slightly more time than manual evaluation (2.3 min). Conclusion: Semi-automated and manual evaluation of liver metastases yield comparable results in response assessments and require comparable effort.

References

• 1 Miller A B, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M. et al . Reporting results of cancer treatment.  Cancer. 1981;  47 207-214
  Google Scholar
• 2 Therasse P, Arbuck S G, Eisenhauer E A. et al . 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. 2000;  92 205-216
  Google Scholar
• 3 Eisenhauer E A, Therasse P, Bogaerts J. et al . New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).  Eur J Cancer. 2009;  45 228-247
  Google Scholar
• 4 Marten K, Auer F, Schmidt S. et al . Inadequacy of manual measurements compared to automated CT volumetry in assessment of treatment response of pulmonary metastases using RECIST criteria.  Eur Radiol. 2006;  16 781-790
  Google Scholar
• 5 Erasmus J J, Gladish G W, Broemeling L. et al . Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response.  J Clin Oncol. 2003;  21 2574-2582
  Google Scholar
• 6 Belton A L, Saini S, Liebermann K. et al . Tumour size measurement in an oncology clinical trial: comparison between off-site and on-site measurements.  Clin Radiol. 2003;  58 311-314
  Google Scholar
• 7 Wormanns D, Kohl G, Klotz E. et al . Volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules at multi-row detector CT: in vivo reproducibility.  Eur Radiol. 2004;  14 86-92
  Google Scholar
• 8 Keil S, Plumhans C, Behrendt F F. et al . Semi-Automated Quantification of Hepatic Lesions in a Phantom.  Invest Radiol. 2008;  44 82-88
  Google Scholar
• 9 Keil S, Behrendt F F, Stanzel S. et al . Semi-automated measurement of hyperdense, hypodense and heterogeneous hepatic metastasis on standard MDCT slices. Comparison of semi-automated and manual measurement of RECIST and WHO criteria.  Eur Radiol. 2008;  18 2456-2465
  Google Scholar
• 10 Puesken M, Juergens K U, Edenfeld A. et al . Einfluss des Vaskularisationsgrades auf die automatische Segmentierung und Messung von Lebertumoren nach RECIST in einer biphasischen Multi-Slice-CT (MSCT).  Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2009;  181 67-73
  Google Scholar
• 11 Bland J M, Altman D G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.  Lancet. 1986;  1 307-310
  Google Scholar
• 12 Lin X Z, Sun Y N, Liu Y H. et al . Liver volume in patients with or without chronic liver diseases.  Hepatogastroenterology. 1998;  45 1069-1074
  Google Scholar
• 13 Bland J M, Altman D G. Measurement error and correlation coefficients.  Bmj. 1996;  313 41-42
  Google Scholar
• 14 Pauls S, Kurschner C, Dharaiya E. et al . Comparison of manual and automated size measurements of lung metastases on MDCT images: potential influence on therapeutic decisions.  Eur J Radiol. 2008;  66 19-26
  Google Scholar
• 15 Hein P A, Romano V C, Rogalla P. et al . Linear and volume measurements of pulmonary nodules at different CT dose levels – intrascan and interscan analysis.  Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2009;  181 24-31
  Google Scholar
• 16 Heussel C P, Meier S, Wittelsberger S. et al . Quantitative CT-Verlaufskontrolle von Lebermalignomen nach RECIST und WHO im Vergleich zur Volumetrie.  Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2007;  179 958-964
  Google Scholar
• 17 Hopper K D, Kasales C J, Van Slyke M A. et al . Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements.  Am J Roentgenol. 1996;  167 851-854
  Google Scholar
• 18 Sohaib S A, Turner B, Hanson J A. et al . CT assessment of tumour response to treatment: comparison of linear, cross-sectional and volumetric measures of tumour size.  Br J Radiol. 2000;  73 1178-1184
  Google Scholar
• 19 Goei R, Lamers R J, Engelshove H A. et al . Computed tomographic staging of esophageal carcinoma: a study on interobserver variation and correlation with pathological findings.  Eur J Radiol. 1992;  15 40-44
  Google Scholar
• 20 Padhani A R, Ollivier L. The RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria: implications for diagnostic radiologists.  Br J Radiol. 2001;  74 983-986
  Google Scholar
• 21 De Vriendt G, Rigauts H, and M eeus L. A semi-automated program for volume measurement in focal hepatic lesions: a first clinical experience.  J Belge Radiol. 1998;  81 181-183
  Google Scholar
• 22 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. 2007;  17 2561-2571
  Google Scholar
• 23 Keil S, Behrendt F F, Stanzel S. et al . RECIST and WHO criteria evaluation of cervical, thoracic and abdominal lymph nodes in patients with malignant lymphoma: manual versus semi-automated measurement on standard MDCT slices.  Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2009;  181 888-895
  Google Scholar
• 24 Vogel M N, Vonthein R, Schmucker S. et al . Lungenrundherdvolumetrie mit optimiertem Segmentierungsalgorithmus. Genauigkeit bei verschiedenen Schichtdicken verglichen mit ein- und zweidimensionalen Messungen.  Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2008;  180 791-797
  Google Scholar
• 25 Thiesse P, Ollivier L, Di Stefano-Louineau D. et al . 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. 1997;  15 3507-3514
  Google Scholar
• 26 Trillet-Lenoir V, Freyer G, Kaemmerlen P. et al . Assessment of tumour response to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: accuracy of the RECIST criteria.  Br J Radiol. 2002;  75 903-908
  Google Scholar
• 27 Watanabe H, Yamamoto S, Kunitoh H. et al . Tumor response to chemotherapy: the validity and reproducibility of RECIST guidelines in NSCLC patients.  Cancer Sci. 2003;  94 1015-1020
  Google Scholar
• 28 Park J O, Lee S I, Song S Y. et al . Measuring response in solid tumors: comparison of RECIST and WHO response criteria.  Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2003;  33 533-537
  Google Scholar

1 In a new software version (release 5.5) the options for a segmentation presetting were reduced and the seed-point method will now be started by a rough line marking the lesion. Both modifications are supposed to reduce the interobserver and intraobserver variability of semi-automated lesion measurements. This version will be released in late 2009.

Dr. Janine Kalkmann

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen

Hufelandstr. 55

45122 Essen

Phone: ++ 49/2 01/72 38 45 08

Fax: ++ 49/2 01/7 23 20 79

Email: janine.kalkmann@uk-essen.de