File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Manual contouring based volumetric evaluation for colorectal cancer with liver limited metastases: a comparison with RECIST

TitleManual contouring based volumetric evaluation for colorectal cancer with liver limited metastases: a comparison with RECIST
Authors
KeywordsColorectal cancer
Liver metastases
Manual contouring
RECIST
Volumetric evaluation
Issue Date2013
PublisherAsian Pacific Organization for Cancer Prevention. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.apocpcontrol.org/
Citation
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 2013, v. 14 n. 7, p. 4151-4155 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: To compare response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) and volumetric evaluation (VE) for colorectal cancer with liver-limited metastasis. Patients and Methods: VE of liver metastases was performed by manual contouring before and after chemotherapy on 45 pairs of computed tomography (CT) images in 36 patients who suffered from metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with liver metastasis only. Cohen kappa was used to compare the agreement between VE and RECIST. Pearson correlation was performed for their comparison after cubic root transformation of the aggregate tumor volumes. Logistic regression was done to identify clinical and radiographic factors to account for the difference which may be predictive in overall response (OR). Results: There were 16 partial response (PR), 23 stable disease (SD) and 6 progressive disease (PD) cases with VE, and 14 PR, 23 SD and 8 PD with RECIST. VE demonstrated good agreement with RECIST ( χ =0.779). Discordant objective responses were noted in 6 pairs of comparisons (13.3%). Pearson correlation also showed excellent correlation between VE and RECIST ( r 2 =0.966, p<0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that VE was in slightly better agreement with RECIST for enlarging lesions than for shrinking lesions ( r 2 =0.935 and r 2 =0.780 respectively). No factor was found predictive of the difference in OR between VE and RECIST. Conclusions: VE exhibited good agreement with RECIST. It might be more useful than RECIST in evaluation shrinking lesions in cases of numerous and conglomerate liver metastases.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/193689
ISSN
2014 Impact Factor: 2.514
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.512
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFang, WJen_US
dc.contributor.authorLam, KOen_US
dc.contributor.authorNg, CYen_US
dc.contributor.authorChoi, CWen_US
dc.contributor.authorKwong, DLWen_US
dc.contributor.authorZheng, SSen_US
dc.contributor.authorLee, VHFen_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-01-20T05:16:45Z-
dc.date.available2014-01-20T05:16:45Z-
dc.date.issued2013en_US
dc.identifier.citationAsian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 2013, v. 14 n. 7, p. 4151-4155en_US
dc.identifier.issn1513-7368-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/193689-
dc.description.abstractBackground: To compare response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) and volumetric evaluation (VE) for colorectal cancer with liver-limited metastasis. Patients and Methods: VE of liver metastases was performed by manual contouring before and after chemotherapy on 45 pairs of computed tomography (CT) images in 36 patients who suffered from metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with liver metastasis only. Cohen kappa was used to compare the agreement between VE and RECIST. Pearson correlation was performed for their comparison after cubic root transformation of the aggregate tumor volumes. Logistic regression was done to identify clinical and radiographic factors to account for the difference which may be predictive in overall response (OR). Results: There were 16 partial response (PR), 23 stable disease (SD) and 6 progressive disease (PD) cases with VE, and 14 PR, 23 SD and 8 PD with RECIST. VE demonstrated good agreement with RECIST ( χ =0.779). Discordant objective responses were noted in 6 pairs of comparisons (13.3%). Pearson correlation also showed excellent correlation between VE and RECIST ( r 2 =0.966, p<0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that VE was in slightly better agreement with RECIST for enlarging lesions than for shrinking lesions ( r 2 =0.935 and r 2 =0.780 respectively). No factor was found predictive of the difference in OR between VE and RECIST. Conclusions: VE exhibited good agreement with RECIST. It might be more useful than RECIST in evaluation shrinking lesions in cases of numerous and conglomerate liver metastases.-
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherAsian Pacific Organization for Cancer Prevention. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.apocpcontrol.org/en_US
dc.relation.ispartofAsian Pacific Journal of Cancer Preventionen_US
dc.subjectColorectal cancer-
dc.subjectLiver metastases-
dc.subjectManual contouring-
dc.subjectRECIST-
dc.subjectVolumetric evaluation-
dc.titleManual contouring based volumetric evaluation for colorectal cancer with liver limited metastases: a comparison with RECISTen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailLam, KO: lamkaon@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailNg, CY: ngchoryi@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailChoi, CW: hcchoi@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailKwong, DLW: dlwkwong@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailLee, VHF: vhflee@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityLam, KO=rp01501en_US
dc.identifier.authorityKwong, DLW=rp00414en_US
dc.identifier.authorityLee, VHF=rp00264en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_OA_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.7.4151en_US
dc.identifier.pmid23991968-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84885441753-
dc.identifier.hkuros227233en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros239813-
dc.identifier.volume14en_US
dc.identifier.issue7-
dc.identifier.spage4151en_US
dc.identifier.epage4155en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000328269400025-
dc.publisher.placeKoreaen_US
dc.identifier.issnl1513-7368-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats