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。
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信