Advertisement

Quantitative methodology using CT for predicting survival in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma: a pilot study

      Abstract

      Objective

      To develop a methodology which quantifies multiple changing lesion features resulting in an optimized computed tomography (CT) response score (CRS) for prediction of overall survival (OS) in response to treatment for metastatic colorectal carcinoma (MCRC).

      Subjects and Methods

      This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, institutional review board-approved retrospective study evaluated multiple changing imaging findings and their correlation with OS with a new methodology comparing the baseline and first post-treatment CT scans in 38 MCRC patients on last-line chemotherapy (cetuximab and irinotecan). Tumor size/enhancement changes and interval development of new lesions were quantified with either Likert-type scales (all parameters) or Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) (size change only). The most predictive parameters for OS were used to generate the CRS with an overall range of −3 (complete disappearance) to +2 (definite tumor increase). The Cox Hazard Ratio was used to assess prediction of survival. Reader agreement was evaluated by the kappa statistic.

      Results

      Tumor size was the best predictor of OS using the Likert-type scale or RECIST. The CRS was not improved combining size change with other parameters. Use of the Likert-type scale resulted in predicting OS with a Cox hazard ratio of 1.697 (P=.0004) and good agreement (kappa=0.73, 95% CI=0.41–1.10) between observers with no significant difference using RECIST.

      Conclusion

      The methodology produces a CRS for MCRC predicting OS resulting from therapy which expands standard RECIST guidelines to allow critical evaluation of multiple additional imaging parameters. Size change alone was found to be the best parameter of those considered in terms of maximizing agreement and prediction of OS.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Clarke LP
        • Sriram RD
        • Schilling LB
        Imaging as a biomarker: standards for change measurements in therapy workshop summary.
        Acad Radiol. 2008; 15: 501-530
        • Johnson JR
        • Williams G
        • Pazdur R
        End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs.
        J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21: 1404-1411
        • Curran SD
        • Mueliner AU
        • Schwartz LH
        Imaging response assessment in oncology.
        Cancer Imaging. 2006; 6: S126-S130
        • Therasse P
        • Arbuck SG
        • Eisenhauer EA
        • et al.
        New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92: 205-216
        • Eisenhauer EA
        • Therasse P
        • Bogaerts J
        • et al.
        New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guidelines (version 1.1).
        Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 228-247
        • Husband JE
        • Schwartz LH
        • Spencer J
        • et al.
        Evaluation of the response to treatment of solid tumours — a consensus statement of the international cancer imaging society.
        Br J Cancer. 2004; 90: 2256-2260
        • Zhao B
        • Schwartz LH
        • Moskowitz CS
        • et al.
        Lung cancer: computerized quantification of tumor response — initial results.
        Radiology. 2006; 241: 892-898
        • Schnall M
        • Rosen M
        Primer on imaging technologies for cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 3225-3233
        • Shankar LK
        • Sullivan DC
        Functional imaging in lung cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 3203-3211
        • Kelloff GJ
        • Hoffman JM
        • Johnson B
        • et al.
        Progress and promise of FDG-PET imaging for cancer patient management and oncologic drug development.
        Clin Cancer Res. 2005; 11: 2785-2808
        • Smith JJ
        • Sorensen AG
        • Thrall JH
        Biomarkers in imaging: realizing radiology's future.
        Radiology. 2003; 227: 633-638
        • Tuma RS
        Sometimes size doesn't matter: revaluating RECIST and tumor response rate end points.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006; 98: 1272-1274
        • Lesko LJ
        • Atkinson AJ
        Use of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in drug development and regulatory decision making: criteria, validation, strategies.
        Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2001; 41: 347-366
        • Pien HH
        • Fischman AJ
        • Thrall JH
        • et al.
        Using imaging biomarkers to accelerate drug development and clinical trials.
        Drug Discov Today. 2005; 10: 259-266
        • D'Orsi CJ
        • Newell MS
        BI-RADS decoded: detailed guidance on potentially confusing issues.
        Radiol Clin North Am. 2007; : 751-763
        • Lazarus E
        • Mainiero MB
        • Schepps B
        • et al.
        BI-RADS Lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.
        Radiology. 2006; 239: 385-391
        • American College of Radiology
        Breast imaging reporting and data system, breast imaging atlas.
        4th ed. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA2003
      1. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes, archives of psychology, No.140.

        • Rogers MP
        • Orav J
        • Black
        • et al.
        The use of a Simple Likert Scale to measure quality of life in brain tumor patients.
        J Neuro-Oncol. 2001; 55: 121-131
        • Impellizzeri FM
        • Maffiuletti NA
        Convergent evidence for construct validity of a 7-point Likert scale of lower limb muscle soreness.
        Clin J Sport Med. 2007; 17: 494-496
        • Case LD
        • Kimmick G
        • Paskett ED
        • et al.
        Interpreting measures of treatment effect in cancer clinical trials.
        Oncologist. 2002; 7: 181-187
        • Landis JR
        • Koch GG
        The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
        Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-174
        • Langlotz CP
        Automatic structuring of radiology reports: harbinger of a second information revolution in radiology.
        Radiology. 2002; 222: 5-7
        • Alberts SR
        • Wagman LD
        Chemotherapy for colorectal cancer liver metasteses.
        Oncologist. 2008; 13 (Epub 2008 Oct 6): 1063-1073
        • Chhatwal J
        • Alagoz O
        • Lindstrom MJ
        • et al.
        A logistic regression model based on the national mammography database format to aid breast cancer diagnosis.
        AJR. 2009; 192: 1117-1127
        • Bagley SC
        • White H
        • Golomb BA
        Logistic regression in the medical literature: standards for use and reporting, with particular attention to one medical domain.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2001; 54: 979-985
        • Gareen IF
        • Gatsonis C
        Primer on multiple regression models for diagnostic imaging research.
        Radiology. 2003; 229: 305-310
        • Karapetis CS
        • Khambata-Ford S
        • Jonker DJ
        • et al.
        K-ras Mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2008; 359 (No.17): 1757-1765
        • Berg WA
        • D'Orsi CJ
        • Jackson VP
        • et al.
        Does training in the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography?.
        Radiology. 2002; 224: 871-880