© 2001 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 93, No. 18, 1401-1405,
September 19, 2001
© 2001 Oxford University Press
REPORT |
Comparison of One-, Two-, and Three-Dimensional Measurements of Childhood Brain Tumors
Affiliations of authors: K. E. Warren, Neuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, MD; A. A. Aikin, F. M. Balis, Pediatric Oncology Branch, NCI; N. Patronas, Department of Radiology, Clinical Center, Bethesda; P. S. Albert, Biometric Research Branch, Clinical Center.
Correspondence to: Katherine E. Warren, M.D., National Institutes of Health, Bldg. 10, Rm. 12S245, 10 Center Dr., MSC 1928, Bethesda, MD 20892–1928 (e-mail: warrenk{at}mail.nih.gov).
Background: End points for assessing drug activity in brain tumors are determined by measuring the change in tumor size by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) relative to a pretreatment or best-response scan. Traditionally, two-dimensional (2D) tumor measurements have been used, but one-dimensional (1D) measurements have recently been proposed as an alternative. Because software to estimate three-dimensional (3D) tumor volume from digitized MRI images is available, we compared all three methods of tumor measurement for childhood brain tumors and clinical outcome. Methods: Tumor size from 130 MRI scans from 32 patients (32 baseline and 98 follow-up scans, for a total of 130 scans; median, three scans per patient; range, two to 18 scans) was measured by each method. Tumor-response category (partial response, minor response, stable disease, or progressive disease) was determined from the percentage change in tumor size between the baseline or best-response scan and follow-up scans. Time to clinical progression was independently determined by chart review. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Concordances between 1D and 2D, 1D and 3D, and 2D and 3D were 83% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 67% to 99%), 61% (95% CI = 47% to 75%), and 66% (95% CI = 52% to 80%), respectively, on follow-up scans. Concordances for 1D and 3D and for 2D and 3D were statistically significantly lower than the concordance for 1D and 2D (P<.001 and P = .003, respectively). Concordance among 1D, 2D, and 3D methods in detecting partial response was high; there was less concordance in classifying tumors in the minor response and progressive-disease categories. Median times to progression measured by the 1D, 2D, and 3D methods were 154, 105, and 112 days, respectively, compared with 114 days based on neurologic symptoms and signs (P = .09 for overall comparison). Conclusions: Detection of partial responses was not influenced by the measurement method, but estimating time to disease progression may be method dependent for childhood brain tumors.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J.W. Henson, S. Ulmer, and G.J. Harris Brain Tumor Imaging in Clinical Trials AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., March 1, 2008; 29(3): 419 - 424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Suzuki, H. Jacobsson, T. Hatschek, M. R. Torkzad, K. Boden, Y. Eriksson-Alm, E. Berg, H. Fujii, A. Kubo, and L. Blomqvist Radiologic Measurements of Tumor Response to Treatment: Practical Approaches and Limitations RadioGraphics, March 1, 2008; 28(2): 329 - 344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. A. Mayr, W. T. C. Yuh, T. Taoka, J. Z. Wang, D. H. Wu, J. F. Montebello, S. L. Meeks, A. C. Paulino, V. A. Magnotta, M. Adli, et al. Serial therapy-induced changes in tumor shape in cervical cancer and their impact on assessing tumor volume and treatment response. Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2006; 187(1): 65 - 72. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Galanis, J. C. Buckner, M. J. Maurer, R. Sykora, R. Castillo, K. V. Ballman, B. J. Erickson, and for the North central cancer treatment Group Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: Measurement by RECIST, two-dimensional, computer-assisted tumor area, and computer-assisted tumor volume methods Neuro-oncol, April 1, 2006; 8(2): 156 - 165. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. T. Zacharia, S. Saini, E. F. Halpern, and J. E. Sumner CT of Colon Cancer Metastases to the Liver Using Modified RECIST Criteria: Determining the Ideal Number of Target Lesions to Measure. Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2006; 186(4): 1067 - 1070. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. D. Shah, S. Kesari, R. Xu, T. T. Batchelor, A. M. O'Neill, F. H. Hochberg, B. Levy, J. Bradshaw, and P. Y. Wen Comparison of linear and volumetric criteria in assessing tumor response in adult high-grade gliomas Neuro-oncol, January 1, 2006; 8(1): 38 - 46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. F. Dempsey, B. R. Condon, and D. M. Hadley Measurement of Tumor "Size" in Recurrent Malignant Glioma: 1D, 2D, or 3D? AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., April 1, 2005; 26(4): 770 - 776. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|