AOSOP4 Comparison of Volumetric Evaluation for Tumour Response with RECIST in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer with Liver Metastases Only

W. J. Fang,N. Xu,K. O. Lam,S. C. Y. Ng,C. W. Choi,D. L. W. Kwong,S. S. Zheng,V. H. F. Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2012.02.014

IF: 10.002

2012-01-01

European Journal of Cancer

Abstract:Background Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) is the most widely acceptable assessment tool for assessing tumour response. However, volumetric evaluation (VE) was shown to be even more accurate than was RECIST in recent studies. Methods VE of liver metastases from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was performed by manual contouring of all liver metastases on computed tomography (CT) images of 5 mm slice thickness on the Eclipse Treatment Planning System at baseline and after chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 (n = 18) with or without cetuximab (n = 14) on 41 pairs of CT images in 32 patients treated at the Queen Mary Hospital from January 2008 to December 2010. The aggregate tumour volumes were then compared with the baseline for tumour response. Best objective response (OR) by use of VE (PD, >73% compared with nadir; SD, between PD and PR; PR <65% compared with nadir; CR, complete disappearance) was defined according to previous reports. Cohen kappa was used to compare OR based on VE, RECIST, and Independent Radiologist Review Committee (IRRC). Pearson correlation was calculated for association between VE and RECIST after cubic root transformation of the aggregate tumour volumes. Logistic regression was done for any clinical and radiological factors, accounting for the difference in OR between VE and RECIST. Findings OR by VE did not match with that by use of RECIST in six pairs of comparisons. However, VE showed good agreement with RECIST ( κ = 0.755 ) and also better agreement with IRRC than did RECIST ( κ = 0.547 and κ = 0.462 , respectively). Pearson correlation showed an excellent correlation between VE and RECIST ( r 2 = 0.968 , p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed better agreement for enlarging lesions than for shrinking lesions ( r 2 = 0.974 and r 2 = 0.887 , respectively). No factor was predictive of the difference in OR between VE and RECIST. Interpretation VE showed good agreement with RECIST in OR evaluation. It might be a better method than RECIST when evaluating conglomerate matted liver metastases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) is the most widely acceptable assessment tool for assessing tumour response. However, volumetric evaluation (VE) was shown to be even more accurate than was RECIST in recent studies. VE of liver metastases from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was performed by manual contouring of all liver metastases on computed tomography (CT) images of 5 mm slice thickness on the Eclipse Treatment Planning System at baseline and after chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 (n = 18) with or without cetuximab (n = 14) on 41 pairs of CT images in 32 patients treated at the Queen Mary Hospital from January 2008 to December 2010. The aggregate tumour volumes were then compared with the baseline for tumour response. Best objective response (OR) by use of VE (PD, >73% compared with nadir; SD, between PD and PR; PR <65% compared with nadir; CR, complete disappearance) was defined according to previous reports. Cohen kappa was used to compare OR based on VE, RECIST, and Independent Radiologist Review Committee (IRRC). Pearson correlation was calculated for association between VE and RECIST after cubic root transformation of the aggregate tumour volumes. Logistic regression was done for any clinical and radiological factors, accounting for the difference in OR between VE and RECIST. OR by VE did not match with that by use of RECIST in six pairs of comparisons. However, VE showed good agreement with RECIST ( κ = 0.755 ) and also better agreement with IRRC than did RECIST ( κ = 0.547 and κ = 0.462 , respectively). Pearson correlation showed an excellent correlation between VE and RECIST ( r 2 = 0.968 , p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed better agreement for enlarging lesions than for shrinking lesions ( r 2 = 0.974 and r 2 = 0.887 , respectively). No factor was predictive of the difference in OR between VE and RECIST. VE showed good agreement with RECIST in OR evaluation. It might be a better method than RECIST when evaluating conglomerate matted liver metastases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.