Volumetric tumor response assessment is inefficient without overt clinical benefit compared to conventional, manual veterinary response assessment in canine nasal tumors. Issue 5 (23rd July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nell, Esther; Ober, Christopher; Rendahl, Aaron; Forrest, Lisa; Lawrence, Jessica
• Is Part Of: Veterinary radiology & ultrasound. Volume 61:Issue 5(2020)
• Page Start: 592
• Page End: 603
• Publication Date: 2020-07-23
• Subjects: GTV -- image registration -- neoplasia; Veterinary radiology -- Periodicals; Radiologie vétérinaire -- Périodiques; Échographie vétérinaire -- Périodiques; Radiography -- Periodicals; Ultrasonography -- Periodicals; Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Veterinary Medicine -- Periodicals; Societies, Medical -- Periodicals; 636.089607
• DOI: 10.1111/vru.12895
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1058-8183

Abstract

Abstract: Accurate assessment of tumor response to therapy is critical in guiding management of veterinary oncology patients and is most commonly performed using response evaluation criteria in solid tumors criteria. This process can be time consuming and have high intra‐ and interobserver variability. The primary aim of this serial measurements, secondary analysis study was to compare manual linear tumor response assessment to semi‐automated, contoured response assessment in canine nasal tumors. The secondary objective was to determine if tumor measurements or clinical characteristics, such as stage, would correlate to progression‐free interval. Three investigators evaluated paired CT scans of skulls of 22 dogs with nasal tumors obtained prior to and following radiation therapy. The automatically generated tumor volumes were not useful for canine nasal tumors in this study, characterized by poor intraobserver agreement between automatically generated contours and hand‐adjusted contours. The radiologist's manual linear method of determining response evaluation criteria in solid tumors categorization and tumor volume is significantly faster ( P < .0001) but significantly underestimates nasal tumor volume ( P < .05) when compared to a contour‐based method. Interobserver agreement was greater for volume determination using the contour‐based method when compared to response evaluation criteria in solid tumors categorization utilizing the same method. However, response evaluation criteria in solid tumors categorization and percentage volume change were strongly correlated, providing validity to response evaluation criteria in solid tumors as a rapid method of tumor response assessment for canine nasal tumors. No clinical characteristics or tumor measurements were significantly associated with progression‐free interval.