The impact of 2D versus 3D quantitation of tumor bulk determination on current methods of assessing response to treatment

Kenneth D. Hopper, Claudia J. Kasales, Kathleen D. Eggli, Thomas R. TenHave, Neil M. Belman, Paul S. Potok, Mark A. Van Slyke, George J. Olt, Pamelyn Close, Allan Lipton, Harold A. Harvey, Jonathan S. Hartzel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

70 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Measurements from sequential axial '2D' data in cancer patients are commonly used to assess treatment response or disease progression. This study compares the volume of tumor bulk calculated with 3D reconstructions with that calculated by conventional methods to determine if it might change patient classification. Method: All medical, gynecologic, and pediatric oncology patients under treatment who were evaluated with serial CT scans between January 1, 1992, and July 31, 1994, for whom the digital data were available were included in this study. For each tumor site, the maximum diameter and its perpendicular were measured and multiplied together to yield an area. The sum of areas of the measured lesions was used as an approximation of overall 2D tumor volume. In addition, the 2D area of each site was multiplied by its height, yielding a 2D volume. Last, the digital data were loaded into a 3D computer system and total 3D tumor volumes determined. All medical and gynecologic oncology patients were treated based upon the 2D area of tumor. The pediatric oncology patients were treated based upon the 2D volume of tumor measured as per standard practice. The members of each treating oncologic service assessed their patients as to how the other two methods would have changed their classification of the patients' response category. Results: Four hundred thirty-three CT scans were performed in 139 patients, which included 204 baseline and 294 follow-up CT examinations. Seventy patients had new tumor loci and would have been classified as failure by all three methods of tumor bulk measurement. The 3D volume versus the 2D area method of tumor bulk assessment would have changed response categories in 52 of the 294 follow-up CT examinations (p < 0.0001). Thirty-five patients were recategorized from either 'no response' to 'failure' (21 patients) or 'no response' to 'response' (14 patients) categories. If only those follow- up studies without new metastatic loci are considered, the 3D volume versus the 2D area methods of tumor assessment would have changed the treatment response category in 23.2%. The use of the 2D volume method of calculating tumor volume of bulk tended to overestimate the overall tumor size by an average of 244 cm3 (p = 0.001). Conclusion: The 3D method of tumor volume measurement differs significantly from conventional 2D methods of tumor volume determination. Large prospective studies analyzing the usefulness of 3D tumor volume measurements and assessing possible changes in patient response categories would be required for full utilization of this more accurate method of following disease bulk.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)930-937
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Computer Assisted Tomography
Volume20
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 1996

Fingerprint

Tumor Burden
Neoplasms
Therapeutics
Pediatrics
Medical Oncology
Computer Systems
Disease Progression
Prospective Studies

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Hopper, Kenneth D. ; Kasales, Claudia J. ; Eggli, Kathleen D. ; TenHave, Thomas R. ; Belman, Neil M. ; Potok, Paul S. ; Van Slyke, Mark A. ; Olt, George J. ; Close, Pamelyn ; Lipton, Allan ; Harvey, Harold A. ; Hartzel, Jonathan S. / The impact of 2D versus 3D quantitation of tumor bulk determination on current methods of assessing response to treatment. In: Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography. 1996 ; Vol. 20, No. 6. pp. 930-937.
@article{963ec14029ae4768bcb57f1ff51dca00,
title = "The impact of 2D versus 3D quantitation of tumor bulk determination on current methods of assessing response to treatment",
abstract = "Purpose: Measurements from sequential axial '2D' data in cancer patients are commonly used to assess treatment response or disease progression. This study compares the volume of tumor bulk calculated with 3D reconstructions with that calculated by conventional methods to determine if it might change patient classification. Method: All medical, gynecologic, and pediatric oncology patients under treatment who were evaluated with serial CT scans between January 1, 1992, and July 31, 1994, for whom the digital data were available were included in this study. For each tumor site, the maximum diameter and its perpendicular were measured and multiplied together to yield an area. The sum of areas of the measured lesions was used as an approximation of overall 2D tumor volume. In addition, the 2D area of each site was multiplied by its height, yielding a 2D volume. Last, the digital data were loaded into a 3D computer system and total 3D tumor volumes determined. All medical and gynecologic oncology patients were treated based upon the 2D area of tumor. The pediatric oncology patients were treated based upon the 2D volume of tumor measured as per standard practice. The members of each treating oncologic service assessed their patients as to how the other two methods would have changed their classification of the patients' response category. Results: Four hundred thirty-three CT scans were performed in 139 patients, which included 204 baseline and 294 follow-up CT examinations. Seventy patients had new tumor loci and would have been classified as failure by all three methods of tumor bulk measurement. The 3D volume versus the 2D area method of tumor bulk assessment would have changed response categories in 52 of the 294 follow-up CT examinations (p < 0.0001). Thirty-five patients were recategorized from either 'no response' to 'failure' (21 patients) or 'no response' to 'response' (14 patients) categories. If only those follow- up studies without new metastatic loci are considered, the 3D volume versus the 2D area methods of tumor assessment would have changed the treatment response category in 23.2{\%}. The use of the 2D volume method of calculating tumor volume of bulk tended to overestimate the overall tumor size by an average of 244 cm3 (p = 0.001). Conclusion: The 3D method of tumor volume measurement differs significantly from conventional 2D methods of tumor volume determination. Large prospective studies analyzing the usefulness of 3D tumor volume measurements and assessing possible changes in patient response categories would be required for full utilization of this more accurate method of following disease bulk.",
author = "Hopper, {Kenneth D.} and Kasales, {Claudia J.} and Eggli, {Kathleen D.} and TenHave, {Thomas R.} and Belman, {Neil M.} and Potok, {Paul S.} and {Van Slyke}, {Mark A.} and Olt, {George J.} and Pamelyn Close and Allan Lipton and Harvey, {Harold A.} and Hartzel, {Jonathan S.}",
year = "1996",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/00004728-199611000-00011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "930--937",
journal = "Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography",
issn = "0363-8715",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

The impact of 2D versus 3D quantitation of tumor bulk determination on current methods of assessing response to treatment. / Hopper, Kenneth D.; Kasales, Claudia J.; Eggli, Kathleen D.; TenHave, Thomas R.; Belman, Neil M.; Potok, Paul S.; Van Slyke, Mark A.; Olt, George J.; Close, Pamelyn; Lipton, Allan; Harvey, Harold A.; Hartzel, Jonathan S.

In: Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, Vol. 20, No. 6, 01.11.1996, p. 930-937.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The impact of 2D versus 3D quantitation of tumor bulk determination on current methods of assessing response to treatment

AU - Hopper, Kenneth D.

AU - Kasales, Claudia J.

AU - Eggli, Kathleen D.

AU - TenHave, Thomas R.

AU - Belman, Neil M.

AU - Potok, Paul S.

AU - Van Slyke, Mark A.

AU - Olt, George J.

AU - Close, Pamelyn

AU - Lipton, Allan

AU - Harvey, Harold A.

AU - Hartzel, Jonathan S.

PY - 1996/11/1

Y1 - 1996/11/1

N2 - Purpose: Measurements from sequential axial '2D' data in cancer patients are commonly used to assess treatment response or disease progression. This study compares the volume of tumor bulk calculated with 3D reconstructions with that calculated by conventional methods to determine if it might change patient classification. Method: All medical, gynecologic, and pediatric oncology patients under treatment who were evaluated with serial CT scans between January 1, 1992, and July 31, 1994, for whom the digital data were available were included in this study. For each tumor site, the maximum diameter and its perpendicular were measured and multiplied together to yield an area. The sum of areas of the measured lesions was used as an approximation of overall 2D tumor volume. In addition, the 2D area of each site was multiplied by its height, yielding a 2D volume. Last, the digital data were loaded into a 3D computer system and total 3D tumor volumes determined. All medical and gynecologic oncology patients were treated based upon the 2D area of tumor. The pediatric oncology patients were treated based upon the 2D volume of tumor measured as per standard practice. The members of each treating oncologic service assessed their patients as to how the other two methods would have changed their classification of the patients' response category. Results: Four hundred thirty-three CT scans were performed in 139 patients, which included 204 baseline and 294 follow-up CT examinations. Seventy patients had new tumor loci and would have been classified as failure by all three methods of tumor bulk measurement. The 3D volume versus the 2D area method of tumor bulk assessment would have changed response categories in 52 of the 294 follow-up CT examinations (p < 0.0001). Thirty-five patients were recategorized from either 'no response' to 'failure' (21 patients) or 'no response' to 'response' (14 patients) categories. If only those follow- up studies without new metastatic loci are considered, the 3D volume versus the 2D area methods of tumor assessment would have changed the treatment response category in 23.2%. The use of the 2D volume method of calculating tumor volume of bulk tended to overestimate the overall tumor size by an average of 244 cm3 (p = 0.001). Conclusion: The 3D method of tumor volume measurement differs significantly from conventional 2D methods of tumor volume determination. Large prospective studies analyzing the usefulness of 3D tumor volume measurements and assessing possible changes in patient response categories would be required for full utilization of this more accurate method of following disease bulk.

AB - Purpose: Measurements from sequential axial '2D' data in cancer patients are commonly used to assess treatment response or disease progression. This study compares the volume of tumor bulk calculated with 3D reconstructions with that calculated by conventional methods to determine if it might change patient classification. Method: All medical, gynecologic, and pediatric oncology patients under treatment who were evaluated with serial CT scans between January 1, 1992, and July 31, 1994, for whom the digital data were available were included in this study. For each tumor site, the maximum diameter and its perpendicular were measured and multiplied together to yield an area. The sum of areas of the measured lesions was used as an approximation of overall 2D tumor volume. In addition, the 2D area of each site was multiplied by its height, yielding a 2D volume. Last, the digital data were loaded into a 3D computer system and total 3D tumor volumes determined. All medical and gynecologic oncology patients were treated based upon the 2D area of tumor. The pediatric oncology patients were treated based upon the 2D volume of tumor measured as per standard practice. The members of each treating oncologic service assessed their patients as to how the other two methods would have changed their classification of the patients' response category. Results: Four hundred thirty-three CT scans were performed in 139 patients, which included 204 baseline and 294 follow-up CT examinations. Seventy patients had new tumor loci and would have been classified as failure by all three methods of tumor bulk measurement. The 3D volume versus the 2D area method of tumor bulk assessment would have changed response categories in 52 of the 294 follow-up CT examinations (p < 0.0001). Thirty-five patients were recategorized from either 'no response' to 'failure' (21 patients) or 'no response' to 'response' (14 patients) categories. If only those follow- up studies without new metastatic loci are considered, the 3D volume versus the 2D area methods of tumor assessment would have changed the treatment response category in 23.2%. The use of the 2D volume method of calculating tumor volume of bulk tended to overestimate the overall tumor size by an average of 244 cm3 (p = 0.001). Conclusion: The 3D method of tumor volume measurement differs significantly from conventional 2D methods of tumor volume determination. Large prospective studies analyzing the usefulness of 3D tumor volume measurements and assessing possible changes in patient response categories would be required for full utilization of this more accurate method of following disease bulk.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=10544233361&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=10544233361&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00004728-199611000-00011

DO - 10.1097/00004728-199611000-00011

M3 - Article

C2 - 8933793

AN - SCOPUS:10544233361

VL - 20

SP - 930

EP - 937

JO - Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

JF - Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

SN - 0363-8715

IS - 6

ER -