3D Assessment of Lymph Nodes vs. RECIST 1.1

Steger, Sebastian; Franco, Fabio; Sverzellati, Nicola; Chiari, Gianfranco; Colomer, Ramón

doi:10.1016/j.acra.2010.11.010

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nodal stage also affects the patient survival rate and the time interval to development of distant metastasis (4, 7, 22, 23). Therefore, an evaluation of the lymph node stage is important to precisely assess the cancer burden and to correlate the tumor burden with the tumor stage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, size criteria are mainly used to detect malignant lymph nodes, although different studies have reported variable sensitivity and specificity of lymph node enlargement on CT scans (22). Several studies have reported that the short axis of a lymph node may be less sensitive to the node's spatial orientation than the long axis and that the short axis is the most reproducible and optimal predictor of malignancy (22, 23). Schwartz et al (22) compared RECIST 1.0 with RECIST 1.1, but assessed only the lymph nodes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.0 with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1 on MRI in Advanced Breast Cancer Response Evaluation to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo compare the diagnostic performance in evaluating the response of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), between the response evaluation criteria in solid tumor (RECIST) 1.0 and RECIST 1.1, on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for advance breast cancer patients.Materials and MethodsBreast cancer patients, who underwent NAC between 2005 and 2010, were included. Both prechemotherapy and post-chemotherapy MRIs were performed within 1-4 weeks before and after NAC. Only the patients with subsequent surgery were included. The response to NAC was assessed by using RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1. Patients with a complete or partial response on MRI were considered as responders, and those with stable or progressive disease were considered as non-responders. Tumor necrosis > 50% on pathology was defined as responders and necrosis < 50% was defined as non-responders. The diagnostic accuracy of both RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 was analyzed and compared by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.ResultsSeventy-nine females (mean age 51.0 ± 9.3 years) were included. Pathology showed 45 responders and 34 non-responders. There were 49 responders and 30 non-responders on RECIST 1.0, and in 55 patients, RECIST 1.0 results agreed with pathologic results (69.6%). RECIST 1.1 showed 52 responders and 27 non-responders. In 60 patients, RECIST 1.1 results were in accordance with pathology results (75.9%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.809 for RECIST 1.0 and 0.853 for RECIST 1.1.ConclusionRECIST 1.1 showed better diagnostic performance than RECIST 1.0, although there was no statistically significant difference between the two.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.0 with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1 on MRI in Advanced Breast Cancer Response Evaluation to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…11,12 Our study tries to overcome some of these issues with the use of a volumetric measurement, which has demonstrated a good correlation and accuracy with the actual size of the lesion. [13][14][15] Reproducibility, accessibility, and accuracy are waiting to be demonstrated in clinical practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, studies have employed software and semiautomated techniques facilitating this work and volumetry measurements should be applied under expert supervision to avoid overestimation errors. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] The number of lesions and tumours examined for each patient depends on the response rate, and most of the recommendations are arbitrary. Usually, the number of lesions to be measured for the assessment is 2 lymph nodes and 2 targets per organ (up to 5 targets in total).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Volumetric assessment of lymph node metastases in patients with non-seminomatous germ cell tumors treated with chemotherapy

Basilio-de-Leo¹,

Villeda-Sandoval²,

Culebro-García³

et al. 2015

CUAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: We evaluate volumetry and RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors) as methodologies for response after chemotherapy for non-seminomatous germ cell tumour with retroperitoneal lymph node metastases. Methods:We performed a retrospective analysis of non-seminomatous testicular tumours and concurrent retroperitoneal lymph node metastases, which received chemotherapy and had computed tomography scans before and after treatment. Volumetric analysis and RECIST criteria were used to calculate response rates. We included a new category (favourable response) for patients with response rates between <100% and >70%. We calculated the correlation between volumetric and RECIST criteria with histological and clinical variables. Results: In total, 18 patients met the inclusion criteria. Histopathologic analysis of orchiectomy showed teratoma in 55.5% of patients, and those without teratoma had predominantly embryonal carcinoma. The mean baseline volume of retroperitoneal metastases was 447 cc, the mean post-chemotherapy volume was 33.6 cc, and the response rate was 62.6%. According to RECIST criteria, the mean baseline diameter was 4.93 cm, the mean post-chemotherapy diameter was 2.39 cm, and the response rate was 42.4%. Large post-chemotherapy residual masses correlated in both classifications with teratoma. The response rate was associated with the need for surgical treatment and the volumetric classification correlated with the need for lymphadenectomy. Conclusions: This study evaluated volumetry as a way to measure clinical response in lymph node metastases of non-seminomatous germ cell tumours. Volumetric analysis is the next step in the evaluation of response rate; its accuracy remains to be determined. Teratoma had greater residual masses and our classification correlated with the need for lymphadenectomy.

show abstract

“…Due to the large shape variability, low image contrast, and the unknown heterogeneous surrounding tissue, the segmentation of a tumor is very challenging and thus an interactive approach is used. Upon a click in the approximate center of the tumor, the system provides an initial proposal of the 3D contour which can then be interactively adapted by the user (Steger, Erdt 2009;Steger and Franco 2011). …”

Section: Roi Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomarkers in NeoMark European Project for Oral Cancers

Poli¹,

Copelli²,

Lanfranco³

et al. 2014

Biomarkers in Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oral cavity cancers are the seventh tumor by diffusion worldwide with more than 90 % being diagnosed as oral squamous cell carcinomas (OSCCs). According to the latest WHO statistics, OSCC accounts for 5 % of the cancer deaths worldwide, being the eighth more lethal cancer entity. Early identification of cancer relapses would have the potentiality to improve the disease control and the patient survival.NeoMark is a European co-funded research project (Seventh Framework Program, Information and Communication Technologies: EU-FP7-ICT-2007-2-22483-NeoMark) that has the objective to identify relevant biomarkers of OSCC recurrence. It integrates high-throughput gene expression analysis in tumor cells and IT-assisted imaging with traditional staging and follow-up protocols to improve the recurrence risk stratification and to obtain the earlier identification of locoregional relapses.The architecture of the project is based on the following key points:-Creation of a web application tool: a unified interface that helps the storage and management of all information -NeoMark database: the heterogeneous NeoMark data (demographics and risk factors; clinical, pathological, and immunohistochemical parameters; filtered and cleaned genomic and imaging data) are stored in a single database -the Integrated Health Record Repository (IHRR) -on a central NeoMark server. The server contains the marker definition functional environment (MDFE), a data analysis module. Based on the heterogeneous input data, it estimates the likelihood of a relapse and identifies OSCC risk factors. -Imaging biomarker extraction: several biomarkers are obtained from medical images such as CT and MRI scans (size, amount of necrosis from tumor and lymph nodes, etc.). To extract those features, a custom software tool -called the NeoMark Image Processing Tool -has specifically been developed. -Genomic data cleaning and filtering: extraction of genomic data and filtering of genes with low data quality and of those with high number of missing values.The NeoMark system was trained and initially validated in a multicenter pilot study (three European clinical centers involved: two in Italy and one in Spain) basing on 86 patients affected by OSCC with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The clinicians recognized the usefulness of the disease bioprofile (or disease-specific profile) identified by NeoMark to evaluate the risk of disease reoccurrence of a patient at diagnosis, to stratify patients affected by OSCC at baseline according to the risk of recurrence, and to reserve a "tailored therapy" to each case. List of Abbreviations Key Facts• Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC): it accounts for 5 % of the cancer deaths worldwide, being the eighth more lethal cancer entity.• Tumor relapse that afflicts 25-50 % of the surgically treated OSCC patients represents the main cause of failure and death.• Early identification of OSCC relapses can improve patient survival and quality of life.• The state of the art in OSCC patient classification is mainly based on TNM stag...

show abstract

3D Assessment of Lymph Nodes vs. RECIST 1.1

Cited by 13 publications

References 6 publications

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.0 with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1 on MRI in Advanced Breast Cancer Response Evaluation to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.0 with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1 on MRI in Advanced Breast Cancer Response Evaluation to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Volumetric assessment of lymph node metastases in patients with non-seminomatous germ cell tumors treated with chemotherapy

Biomarkers in NeoMark European Project for Oral Cancers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About