CT体积测量与RECIST 1.1标准评价免疫治疗晚期肾癌肿瘤反应的比较

C. Roy, M. Quentin, P. Barthélémy, M. Mielcarek, P. Leyendecker, M. Ohana
{"title":"CT体积测量与RECIST 1.1标准评价免疫治疗晚期肾癌肿瘤反应的比较","authors":"C. Roy, M. Quentin, P. Barthélémy, M. Mielcarek, P. Leyendecker, M. Ohana","doi":"10.31487/j.cor.2022.03.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Assessment of a volumetric method versus gold standard unidimensional measurement based on RECIST 1.1 in advanced renal clear cell carcinoma (RCC) treated by immunotherapy.\nMaterials and Methods: We retrospectively recorded the CT data of 14 adult patients treated with immunotherapy for metastatic RCC from February 2016 to January 2018. Follow-up CT scanners were independently reviewed by two radiologists. Unidimensional RECIST 1.1 and volumetric measurements were compared at each time point, with a total of 810 measurements performed for statistical analysis. The main criterion was the inter-observer agreement for each method. The secondary criterion was the tumoral response assessment based on three different items: RECIST 1.1, spherical volumetric method, ellipsoidal volumetric method.\nResults: Intraclass coefficient correlation in volumetric method (0.986 [95% CI: 0.980, 0.990]) was higher than in RECIST (0.903 [95% CI: 0.861, 0.928]). Relative measurement differences with Bland and Altman plot were lower in the volumetric method with shorter limits of agreement (0.8%; upper LOA95%: 36.5; lower LOA95%: −35), versus those in RECIST (-5.1 % (upper LOA95%: 46; lower LOA95%: −57). The volumetric method (especially the ellipsoidal one) assesses the progression disease earlier than RECIST for 57% of patients, but there is no formal difference for partial response assessment.\nConclusion: Volumetric assessment for tumoral response in metastatic RCC compared to unidimensional measurements had a higher inter-observer agreement and might predict disease progression earlier.","PeriodicalId":10487,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oncology and Research","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison Between CT Volumetric Measurement and RECIST 1.1 Criteria to Assess the Tumoral Response in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated by Immunotherapy\",\"authors\":\"C. Roy, M. Quentin, P. Barthélémy, M. Mielcarek, P. Leyendecker, M. Ohana\",\"doi\":\"10.31487/j.cor.2022.03.03\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: Assessment of a volumetric method versus gold standard unidimensional measurement based on RECIST 1.1 in advanced renal clear cell carcinoma (RCC) treated by immunotherapy.\\nMaterials and Methods: We retrospectively recorded the CT data of 14 adult patients treated with immunotherapy for metastatic RCC from February 2016 to January 2018. Follow-up CT scanners were independently reviewed by two radiologists. Unidimensional RECIST 1.1 and volumetric measurements were compared at each time point, with a total of 810 measurements performed for statistical analysis. The main criterion was the inter-observer agreement for each method. The secondary criterion was the tumoral response assessment based on three different items: RECIST 1.1, spherical volumetric method, ellipsoidal volumetric method.\\nResults: Intraclass coefficient correlation in volumetric method (0.986 [95% CI: 0.980, 0.990]) was higher than in RECIST (0.903 [95% CI: 0.861, 0.928]). Relative measurement differences with Bland and Altman plot were lower in the volumetric method with shorter limits of agreement (0.8%; upper LOA95%: 36.5; lower LOA95%: −35), versus those in RECIST (-5.1 % (upper LOA95%: 46; lower LOA95%: −57). The volumetric method (especially the ellipsoidal one) assesses the progression disease earlier than RECIST for 57% of patients, but there is no formal difference for partial response assessment.\\nConclusion: Volumetric assessment for tumoral response in metastatic RCC compared to unidimensional measurements had a higher inter-observer agreement and might predict disease progression earlier.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oncology and Research\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Oncology and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31487/j.cor.2022.03.03\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oncology and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31487/j.cor.2022.03.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估基于RECIST 1.1的体积法与金标准单维测量法在免疫治疗晚期肾透明细胞癌(RCC)中的应用。材料与方法:回顾性记录2016年2月至2018年1月接受转移性RCC免疫治疗的14例成人患者的CT资料。后续的CT扫描仪由两名放射科医生独立审查。在每个时间点比较一维RECIST 1.1和体积测量,共进行810次测量进行统计分析。主要标准是每种方法的观察者之间的一致。次要标准是基于三个不同项目的肿瘤反应评估:RECIST 1.1、球形容积法、椭球容积法。结果:容积法的类内相关系数(0.986 [95% CI: 0.980, 0.990])高于RECIST法(0.903 [95% CI: 0.861, 0.928])。体积法与Bland和Altman图的相对测量差异较小,一致性限较短(0.8%;上loab 95%: 36.5;低loab 95%:−35),而RECIST组为- 5.1%(上loab 95%: 46;下loo95 %:−57)。57%的患者采用容积法(尤其是椭球法)比RECIST更早评估疾病进展,但在部分缓解评估方面没有正式差异。结论:与单维测量相比,体积评估转移性RCC的肿瘤反应具有更高的观察者间一致性,并且可能更早地预测疾病进展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison Between CT Volumetric Measurement and RECIST 1.1 Criteria to Assess the Tumoral Response in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated by Immunotherapy
Objective: Assessment of a volumetric method versus gold standard unidimensional measurement based on RECIST 1.1 in advanced renal clear cell carcinoma (RCC) treated by immunotherapy. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively recorded the CT data of 14 adult patients treated with immunotherapy for metastatic RCC from February 2016 to January 2018. Follow-up CT scanners were independently reviewed by two radiologists. Unidimensional RECIST 1.1 and volumetric measurements were compared at each time point, with a total of 810 measurements performed for statistical analysis. The main criterion was the inter-observer agreement for each method. The secondary criterion was the tumoral response assessment based on three different items: RECIST 1.1, spherical volumetric method, ellipsoidal volumetric method. Results: Intraclass coefficient correlation in volumetric method (0.986 [95% CI: 0.980, 0.990]) was higher than in RECIST (0.903 [95% CI: 0.861, 0.928]). Relative measurement differences with Bland and Altman plot were lower in the volumetric method with shorter limits of agreement (0.8%; upper LOA95%: 36.5; lower LOA95%: −35), versus those in RECIST (-5.1 % (upper LOA95%: 46; lower LOA95%: −57). The volumetric method (especially the ellipsoidal one) assesses the progression disease earlier than RECIST for 57% of patients, but there is no formal difference for partial response assessment. Conclusion: Volumetric assessment for tumoral response in metastatic RCC compared to unidimensional measurements had a higher inter-observer agreement and might predict disease progression earlier.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Disseminated Thymic Carcinoma: Case Report and Discussion on Problems of Treatment What is the Obstetric Outcome with a Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone (LLETZ) for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia? Effects of DSPP and MMP20 Silencing on Key Signaling Pathways in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cells Multifaceted Networking of The Orphan Receptor Estrogen-Related Receptor Β in Breast Cancer Progression Current CT and MRI Applications in the Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer: A Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1