Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 11/2018

07.05.2018 | Oncology

Towards volumetric thresholds in RECIST 1.1: Therapeutic response assessment in hepatic metastases

verfasst von: Katharina S. Winter, Felix O. Hofmann, Kolja M. Thierfelder, Julian W. Holch, Nina Hesse, Alena B. Baumann, Dominik P. Modest, Sebastian Stintzing, Volker Heinemann, Jens Ricke, Wieland H. Sommer, Melvin D’Anastasi

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 11/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To empirically determine thresholds for volumetric assessment of response and progress of liver metastases in line with the unidimensional RECIST thresholds.

Methods

Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer initially enrolled in a multicentre clinical phase-III trial were included. In all CT scans, the longest axial diameters and volumes of hepatic lesions were determined semi-automatically. The sum of diameters and volumes of 1, ≤2 and ≤5 metastases were compared to all previous examinations. Volumetric thresholds corresponding to RECIST 1.1 thresholds were predicted with loess-regression. In sensitivity analysis, the concordances of proposed thresholds, weight-maximizing thresholds and thresholds from loess-regression were compared. Classification concordance for measurements of ≤2 metastases was further analyzed.

Results

For measurements of ≤2 metastases, 348 patients with 629 metastases were included, resulting in 4,773 value pairs. Regression analysis yielded volumetric thresholds of -65.3% for a diameter change of -30%, and +64.6% for a diameter change of +20%. When comparing measurements of unidimensional RECIST assessment with volumetric measurements, there was a concordance of significant progress (≥+20% and ≥+65%) in 88.3% and of significant response (≤-30% and ≤-65%) in 85.0%.

Conclusions

In patients with hepatic metastases, volumetric thresholds of +65% and -65% were yielded corresponding to RECIST thresholds of +20% and -30%.

Key Points

• Volumes and diameters of liver metastases from colorectal cancer were determined.
• Volumetric thresholds of +65%/-65% corresponding to RECIST 1.1 are proposed.
• Comparing both measurements, concordance was 88.3% (significant progress) and 85.0% (significant response).
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) 45(2):228–247CrossRef Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) 45(2):228–247CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat 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(4):781–790CrossRef 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(4):781–790CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Rothe JH, Grieser C, Lehmkuhl L et al (2013) Size determination and response assessment of liver metastases with computed tomography--comparison of RECIST and volumetric algorithms. Eur J Radiol 82(11):1831–1839CrossRef Rothe JH, Grieser C, Lehmkuhl L et al (2013) Size determination and response assessment of liver metastases with computed tomography--comparison of RECIST and volumetric algorithms. Eur J Radiol 82(11):1831–1839CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Van Hoe L, Van Cutsem E, Vergote I et al (1997) Size quantification of liver metastases in patients undergoing cancer treatment: reproducibility of one-, two-, and three-dimensional measurements determined with spiral CT. Radiology 202(3):671–675CrossRef Van Hoe L, Van Cutsem E, Vergote I et al (1997) Size quantification of liver metastases in patients undergoing cancer treatment: reproducibility of one-, two-, and three-dimensional measurements determined with spiral CT. Radiology 202(3):671–675CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Wulff AM, Fabel M, Freitag-Wolf S et al (2013) Volumetric response classification in metastatic solid tumors on MSCT: initial results in a whole-body setting. Eur J Radiol 82(10):e567–e573CrossRef Wulff AM, Fabel M, Freitag-Wolf S et al (2013) Volumetric response classification in metastatic solid tumors on MSCT: initial results in a whole-body setting. Eur J Radiol 82(10):e567–e573CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Sohaib SA, Turner B, Hanson JA, Farquharson M, Oliver RT, Reznek RH (2000) CT assessment of tumor response to treatment: comparison of linear, cross-sectional and volumetric measures of tumor size. Br J Radiol 73(875):1178–1184CrossRef Sohaib SA, Turner B, Hanson JA, Farquharson M, Oliver RT, Reznek RH (2000) CT assessment of tumor response to treatment: comparison of linear, cross-sectional and volumetric measures of tumor size. Br J Radiol 73(875):1178–1184CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Singh AK, Hiroyuki Y, Sahani DV (2009) Advanced postprocessing and the emerging role of computer-aided detection. Radiol Clin North Am 47(1):59–77CrossRef Singh AK, Hiroyuki Y, Sahani DV (2009) Advanced postprocessing and the emerging role of computer-aided detection. Radiol Clin North Am 47(1):59–77CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Buckler AJ, Bresolin L, Dunnick NR, Sullivan DC (2011) A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging. Radiology 258(3):906–914CrossRef Buckler AJ, Bresolin L, Dunnick NR, Sullivan DC (2011) A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging. Radiology 258(3):906–914CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Prasad SR, Jhaveri KS, Saini S, Hahn PF, Halpern EF, Sumner JE (2002) CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques initial observations. Radiology 225(2):416–419CrossRef Prasad SR, Jhaveri KS, Saini S, Hahn PF, Halpern EF, Sumner JE (2002) CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques initial observations. Radiology 225(2):416–419CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al (2000) 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 92(3):205–216CrossRef Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al (2000) 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 92(3):205–216CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Stintzing S, Modest DP, Rossius L, et al. (2016) FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a post-hoc analysis of tumor dynamics in the final RAS wild-type subgroup of this randomised open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30269-8 CrossRef Stintzing S, Modest DP, Rossius L, et al. (2016) FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a post-hoc analysis of tumor dynamics in the final RAS wild-type subgroup of this randomised open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​s1470-2045(16)30269-8 CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Heinemann V, von Weikersthal LF, Decker T et al (2014) FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 15(10):1065–1075CrossRef Heinemann V, von Weikersthal LF, Decker T et al (2014) FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 15(10):1065–1075CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Chalian H, Tochetto SM, Tore HG, Rezai P, Yaghmai V (2012) Hepatic tumors: region-of-interest versus volumetric analysis for quantification of attenuation at CT. Radiology 262(3):853–861CrossRef Chalian H, Tochetto SM, Tore HG, Rezai P, Yaghmai V (2012) Hepatic tumors: region-of-interest versus volumetric analysis for quantification of attenuation at CT. Radiology 262(3):853–861CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Keil S, Plumhans C, Behrendt FF et al (2009) Semi-automated quantification of hepatic lesions in a phantom. Invest Radiol 44(2):82–88CrossRef Keil S, Plumhans C, Behrendt FF et al (2009) Semi-automated quantification of hepatic lesions in a phantom. Invest Radiol 44(2):82–88CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Keil S, Plumhans C, Nagy IA et al (2010) Dose reduction for semi-automated volumetry of hepatic metastasis in MDCT studies. Invest Radiol 45(2):77–81CrossRef Keil S, Plumhans C, Nagy IA et al (2010) Dose reduction for semi-automated volumetry of hepatic metastasis in MDCT studies. Invest Radiol 45(2):77–81CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Wulff AM, Bolte H, Fischer S et al (2012) Lung, liver and lymph node metastases in follow-up MSCT: comprehensive volumetric assessment of lesion size changes. Rofo 184(9):820–828CrossRef Wulff AM, Bolte H, Fischer S et al (2012) Lung, liver and lymph node metastases in follow-up MSCT: comprehensive volumetric assessment of lesion size changes. Rofo 184(9):820–828CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Hurvich CM, Simonoff JS, Tsai C-L (1998) Smoothing Parameter Selection in Nonparametric Regression Using an Improved Akaike Information Criterion. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Statistical Methodology) 60(2):271–293CrossRef Hurvich CM, Simonoff JS, Tsai C-L (1998) Smoothing Parameter Selection in Nonparametric Regression Using an Improved Akaike Information Criterion. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Statistical Methodology) 60(2):271–293CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRef Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Mozley PD, Bendtsen C, Zhao B et al (2012) Measurement of tumor volumes improves RECIST-based response assessments in advanced lung cancer. Transl Oncol 5(1):19–25CrossRef Mozley PD, Bendtsen C, Zhao B et al (2012) Measurement of tumor volumes improves RECIST-based response assessments in advanced lung cancer. Transl Oncol 5(1):19–25CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Beaumont H, Souchet S, Labatte JM, Iannessi A, Tolcher AW (2015) Changes of lung tumor volume on CT - prediction of the reliability of assessments. Cancer Imaging 15:17CrossRef Beaumont H, Souchet S, Labatte JM, Iannessi A, Tolcher AW (2015) Changes of lung tumor volume on CT - prediction of the reliability of assessments. Cancer Imaging 15:17CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Ch'en IY, Katz DS, Jeffrey RB Jr et al (1997) Do arterial phase helical CT images improve detection or characterization of colorectal liver metastases? J Comput Assist Tomogr 21(3):391–397CrossRef Ch'en IY, Katz DS, Jeffrey RB Jr et al (1997) Do arterial phase helical CT images improve detection or characterization of colorectal liver metastases? J Comput Assist Tomogr 21(3):391–397CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat van Persijn van Meerten EL, Gelderblom H, Bloem JL (2010) RECIST revised: implications for the radiologist. A review article on the modified RECIST guideline. Eur Radiol 20(6):1456–1467CrossRef van Persijn van Meerten EL, Gelderblom H, Bloem JL (2010) RECIST revised: implications for the radiologist. A review article on the modified RECIST guideline. Eur Radiol 20(6):1456–1467CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Towards volumetric thresholds in RECIST 1.1: Therapeutic response assessment in hepatic metastases
verfasst von
Katharina S. Winter
Felix O. Hofmann
Kolja M. Thierfelder
Julian W. Holch
Nina Hesse
Alena B. Baumann
Dominik P. Modest
Sebastian Stintzing
Volker Heinemann
Jens Ricke
Wieland H. Sommer
Melvin D’Anastasi
Publikationsdatum
07.05.2018
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 11/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5424-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2018

European Radiology 11/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.