Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Huang, Raymond Y
• Unadkat, Prashin
• Bi, Wenya Linda
• George, Elizabeth
• Preusser, Matthias
• McCracken, Jay D
• Keen, Joseph R
• Read, William L
• Olson, Jeffrey J
• Seystahl, Katharina
• Le Rhun, Emilie
• Roelcke, Ulrich
• Koeppen, Susanne
• Furtner, Julia
• Weller, Michael
• Raizer, Jeffrey J
• Schiff, David
• Wen, Patrick Y

Titel

Response assessment of meningioma: 1D, 2D, and volumetric criteria for treatment response and tumor progression

Ist Teil von

• Neuro-oncology (Charlottesville, Va.), 2019-02, Vol.21 (2), p.234-241

Ort / Verlag

US: Oxford University Press

Erscheinungsjahr

2019

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

Oxford Journals 2020 Medicine

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Abstract Background Meningiomas are the most common primary brain tumors in adults. Due to their variable growth rates and irregular tumor shapes, response assessment in clinical trials remains challenging and no standard criteria have been defined. We evaluated 1D, 2D, and volume imaging criteria to assess whether a volumetric approach might be a superior surrogate for overall survival (OS). Methods In this retrospective multicenter study, we evaluated the clinical and imaging data of 93 patients with recurrent meningiomas treated with pharmacotherapy. One-dimensional (1D), 2D, and volumetric measurements of enhancing tumor on pre- and post-treatment MRI were compared at 6 and 12 months after treatment initiation. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the relationship between each imaging criterion and OS. Results The median age of the patient cohort is 51 years (range 12–88), with 14 World Health Organization (WHO) grade I, 53 WHO grade II, and 26 WHO grade III meningiomas. Volumetric increase of 40% and unidimensional increase by 10 mm at 6 months and 12 months provided the strongest association with overall survival (HR = 2.58 and 3.24 respectively, p<0.01). Setting a volume change threshold above 40% did not correlate with survival. The interobserver agreement of 1D, 2D, and volume criteria is only moderate (kappa = 0.49, 0.46, 0.52, respectively). None of the criteria based on tumor size reduction were associated with OS (P > 0.09). Conclusion Compared with 1D (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors 1.1) and 2D (Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology) approaches, volumetric criteria for tumor progression has a stronger association with OS, although the differences were only modest. The interobserver variability is moderate for all 3 methods. Further validation of these findings in an independent patient cohort is needed.