Comparing Measurement Methods in Lung Cancer Treatment
Author Information
Author(s): Cortes J, Rodriguez J, Diaz-Gonzalez J A, Garzon C, Gurpide A, Arbea L, Gil-Bazo I, Navarro V, Cambeiro M, Nicolas A I, Martin-Algarra S, Garcia-Foncillas J, Calvo E
Primary Institution: Clínica Universitaria de Navarra
Hypothesis
Can unidimensional measurements effectively replace bidimensional measurements in assessing tumor response in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer?
Conclusion
Both unidimensional and bidimensional measurement methods yield similar results in assessing tumor response in patients with non-small cell lung cancer after chemotherapy.
Supporting Evidence
- Both measurement methods showed five complete responses.
- Concordance in partial response was excellent with 80 responders for both criteria.
- Only 1.2% of patients were classified differently between the two methods.
- Stable disease was observed in 32 patients by both measurements.
- 47 patients showed progressive disease by unidimensional measurements compared to 42 by bidimensional.
Takeaway
This study shows that measuring tumors in one dimension can work just as well as measuring them in two dimensions when checking how well cancer treatment is working.
Methodology
The study analyzed tumor responses in 164 patients treated with chemotherapy, comparing results from WHO criteria and RECIST.
Potential Biases
Potential bias from the independent panel of radiologists reviewing the measurements.
Limitations
The study was retrospective and included only chemotherapy-naive patients.
Participant Demographics
Median age of 55 years, with a male to female ratio of 129:35.
Statistical Information
P-Value
<0.001
Confidence Interval
95% CI: 0.795–1.0
Statistical Significance
p<0.001
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website