Quantification of tumour response to radiotherapy
- 1 May 2004
- journal article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in The British Journal of Radiology
- Vol. 77 (917) , 405-413
- https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/85294528
Abstract
In 1979, the World Health Organization (WHO) established criteria based on tumour volume change for classifying response to therapy as (i) progressive disease (PD), (ii) partial recovery (PR), and (iii) no change (NC). Typically, the tumour volume is reported from diameter measurements, using the calliper method. Alternatively, the Cavalieri method provides unbiased volume estimates of any structure without assumptions about its shape. In this study, we applied the Cavalieri method in combination with point counting to investigate the changes in tumour volume in four patients with high grade glioma, using 3D MRI. In particular, the volume of tumour within the enhancement boundary, the enhancing abnormality (EA), was estimated from T1 weighted images, and the volume of the non-enhancing abnormality, (NEA) enhancing abnormality, was estimated from T2 relaxation time and magnetic transfer ratio tissue characterization maps. We compared changes in tumour volume estimated by the Cavalieri method with those obtained using the calliper method. Absolute tumour volume differed significantly between the two methods. Analysis of relative change in tumour volume, based on the WHO criteria, provided a different classification using the calliper and Cavalieri methods. The benefit of the Cavalieri method over the calliper method in the estimation of tumour volume is justified by the following factors. First, Cavalieri volume estimates are mathematically unbiased. Second, the Cavalieri method is highly efficient under an appropriate sampling density (i.e. EA volume estimates can be obtained with a coefficient of error no higher than 5% in 2–3 min). Third, the source of variation of the volume estimates due to disagreements between observers, and within observer, is much greater in the positioning of the calliper diameters than in the identification of the tumour boundaries when applying the Cavalieri method. Additionally, the error prediction formula, available to estimate the coefficient of error of Cavalieri volume estimates from the data, allows us to establish more precise classification criteria against which to identify potentially clinical significant changes in tumour volume.Keywords
This publication has 32 references indexed in Scilit:
- Correlations Between Clinical Findings and Magnetization Transfer Imaging Metrics of Tissue Damage in Individuals With Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy With Subcortical Infarcts and LeukoencephalopathyStroke, 2001
- Automatic tumor segmentation using knowledge-based techniquesIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 1998
- Survival rates in patients with primary malignant brain tumors stratified by patient age and tumor histological type: an analysis based on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data, 1973–1991Journal of Neurosurgery, 1998
- Classification of Brain Tumors by Ex Vivo 1H NMR SpectroscopyJournal of Neurochemistry, 1995
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetization Transfer in Experimental Myonecrosis in the RatMagnetic Resonance in Medicine, 1995
- Estimation of fetal volume by magnetic resonance imaging and stereologyThe British Journal of Radiology, 1994
- Why don't we use a “cavalieri”?European Journal Of Cancer, 1994
- The role of surgery in the management of supratentorial intermediate and high-grade astrocytomas in adultsJournal of Neurosurgery, 1990
- Imaging-based stereotaxic serial biopsies in untreated intracranial glial neoplasmsJournal of Neurosurgery, 1987
- The use of the nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinoma.With particular reference to bronchogenic carcinomaCancer, 1948