Advertisement

A simulation study to evaluate the impact of the number of lesions measured on response assessment

Published:December 17, 2008DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.11.010

      Abstract

      The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether the number of lesions that are used to measure tumour burden affects response assessment and inter-rater variability. In order to accomplish this, a simulation study was conducted. Data were generated from a mixed-effects mixture model. Parameter values to input in the model were obtained from the analysis of real data. Response assessments based on 10, five, three, two and one lesion were evaluated. There was little difference between response assessments based on five lesions and response assessments based on 10 lesions. When fewer than five lesions were used to assess response, there were notable differences from the 10 lesion-based response assessment. Basing response assessment on a small number of lesions tends to overestimate response rates and leads to misclassification of patients’ response status. Therefore, measuring five lesions per patient appears to sufficiently capture patients’ response to therapy. Measuring fewer than five lesions results in the loss of information that may adversely affect clinical trial results as well as patient management.

      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 European Journal of Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Therasse P.
        • Arbuck S.G.
        • Eisenhauer E.A.
        • Wanders J.
        • Kaplan R.S.
        • Rubinstein L.
        • et al.
        New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92: 205-216
        • Schwartz L.H.
        • Mazumdar M.
        • Brown W.
        • Smith A.
        • Panicek D.M.
        Variability in response assessment in solid tumors: effect of number of lesions chosen for measurement.
        Clin Cancer Res. 2003; 9: 4318-4323
        • Miller A.B.
        • Hoogstraten B.
        • Staquet M.
        • Winkler A.
        Reporting results of cancer treatment.
        Cancer. 1981; 47: 207-214
      1. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization Offset Publication No. 48; 1979.

        • Hopper K.D.
        • Kasales C.J.
        • Van Slyke M.A.
        • Schwartz T.A.
        • TenHave T.R.
        • Jozefiak J.A.
        Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996; 167: 851-854
        • Schwartz L.H.
        • Ginsberg M.S.
        • DeCorato D.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of tumor measurements in oncology: use of film-based and electronic techniques.
        J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 2179-2184
        • Bogaerts J.
        • Ford R.
        • Sargent D.
        • et al.
        Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria.
        Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 248-260
        • Fleiss J.L.
        • Levin B.
        • Paik M.C.
        Statistical methods for rates and proportions.
        John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York2003
        • Simon R.
        Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials.
        Control Clin Trials. 1989; 10: 1-10
        • Box G.E.P.
        • Draper N.R.
        Empirical model-building and response surfaces.
        John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York1987
        • Eisenhauer E.A.
        • Therasse P.
        • Bogaerts J.
        • et al.
        New response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).
        Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 228-247
        • Karrison T.G.
        • Maitland M.L.
        • Stadler W.M.
        • Ratain M.J.
        Design of phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: application to a study of sorafenib and erlotinib in non small-cell lung cancer.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99: 1455-1461
        • Harville D.A.
        Maximum likelihood approaches to variance component estimation and to related problems.
        J Am Stat Assoc. 1977; 72: 320-338
        • James L.P.
        • Zhao B.
        • Moskowitz C.S.
        • et al.
        Reproducibility of computed tomography (CT) measurements of lung cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26 ([Abstract 8002])