Skip to main content
Log in

Therapy response in malignant pleural mesothelioma-role of MRI using RECIST, modified RECIST and volumetric approaches in comparison with CT

  • Chest
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum/Apology to this article was published on 18 February 2010

Abstract

To evaluate and compare early therapy response according to RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumours) and modified RECIST criteria using MRI techniques in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) in comparison with CT. Fifty patients with MPM (32 male/18 female) were included in this study. Early therapy response was evaluated after 9 weeks [three of six chemotherapy (CHT)] cycles. Additionally patients were examined before chemotherapy, 4 weeks after early therapy response evaluation and after six cycles to evaluate diagnostic follow-up. RECIST and modified RECIST criteria were applied using CT and MRI (HASTE, VIBE, T2-TSE sequences). In MRI additionally a volumetric approach measuring tumour weight (overall segmented tumour volume) was applied. Additionally vital capacity (VC) was measured for correlation. Image interpretation was performed by three independent readers independently and in consensus. The ‘gold standard’ was follow-up examination. Twenty-eight patients showed partial response, 12 patients stable disease and 10 patients progressive disease at early therapy response evaluation. In the follow-up these results remained. For MRI, in 46 cases patients were identically classified using RECIST and modified RECIST criteria. Modified RECIST criteria were identically classified as gold standards in all cases, whereas using RECIST criteria in four cases there was a mismatch (partial response vs. stable disease). Modified RECIST kappa values showed better interobserver variability compared with RECIST criteria (κ=0.9–1.0 vs. 0.7–1.0). For CT, in 44 cases patients were identically classified using RECIST and modified RECIST criteria. Modified RECIST criteria were identically classified as in gold standards in 48 out of 50 patients, whereas using RECIST criteria in 6 cases there was a mismatch (partial response vs. stable disease). Modified RECIST kappa values showed better interobserver variability compared with RECIST criteria (κ=0.9–1.0 vs. 0.6–1.0). Modified RECIST criteria especially in combination with high-resolution MRI is a very accurate and reproducible technique to correctly evaluate early therapy response in MPM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tossavainen A (2000) International expert meeting on new advances in the radiology and screening of asbestos-related diseases. Scand J Work Environ Health 26:449–454

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Robinson BWS, Lake RA (2005) Advances in malignant mesothelioma. Eng J Med 353:1591–1603

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rusch VW (1993) Pleurectomy/decortication and adjuvant therapy for malignant mesothelioma. Chest 103:382–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Roach HD, Davies GJ, Attanoos R et al (2002) Asbestos: When the dust settles-an imaging review of asbestos-related disease. Radiographics 22:167–184

    Google Scholar 

  5. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al (2000) New guidlines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205–216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ceresoli GL, Chiti A, Zucali PA et al (2007) Assessment of tumor response in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cancer Treat Rev 33:533–541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Klaveren RJ, Aerts JGJV, de Bruin HG et al (2002) Inadequacy of the RECIST criteria for the evaluation of response in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Proc Soc Clin Oncol 21:310a

    Google Scholar 

  8. Byrne MJ, Nowak AK (2004) Modified RECIST criteria for assessment of response in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Ann Oncol 15:257–260

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Plathow C, Klopp M, Schoebinger M et al (2006) Monitoring of lung motion in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma using two-dimensional and three-dimensional dynamic magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with spirometry. Invest Radiol 41:443–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Weber MA, Bock M, Plathow C et al (2004) Asbestos-related pleural disease – Value of dedicated magnetic resonance imaging techniques. Invest Radiol 39:554–564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yamamuro M, Gerbaudo VH, Gill RR et al (2007) Morphologic and functional imaging of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur J Radiol 64(3):356–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Heelan RT, Rusch VW, Gebb CB et al (1999) Staging of malignant pleural mesothelioma: Comparison of CT and MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:1039–1047

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cluzel P, Similowski T, Chartrand-Lefebvre C et al (2000) Diaphragm and chest wall: assessment of the inspiratory pump with MR imaging-preliminary observations. Radiology 215:574–583

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Plathow C, Fink C, Ley S et al (2004) Measurement of diaphragmatic length during the breathing cycle by dynamic MRI: comparison between healthy adults and patients with an intrathoracic tumor. Eur Radiol 14:1392–1399

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Plathow C, Ley S, Fink C et al (2004) Evaluation of chest motion and volumetry during the breathing cycle by dynamic MRI in healthy subjects: comparison with pulmonary function tests. Invest Radiol 39:202–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vogelzang NJ, Rusthoven JJ, Symanowski J et al (2003) Phase III study of pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol 21:2636–2644

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schafer JF, Vollmar J, Schick F et al (2005) Detection of pulmonary nodules with breath-hold magnetic resonance imaging in comparison with computed tomography. Rofo 177:41–49

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Both M, Schultze J, Reuter M et al (2005) Fast T1- and T2-weighted pulmonary MR-imaging in patients with bronchial carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 53:478–488

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Plathow C, Schoebinger M, Fink C et al (2006) Quantification of lung tumor volume and rotation at 3D dynamic parallel MR imaging with view sharing: preliminary results. Radiology 240:537–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kunert T, Heimann T, Schröter A, et al (2004) An Interactive System for Volume Segmentation in Computer-Assisted Surgery. Proc. SPIE Medical Imaging Vol. 5367. 10.1117/12.535096

  21. Engelmann U, Schroeter A, Schwab M et al (1999) Borderless teleradiology with CHILI. J Med Internet Res 1:E8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Herman GT, Zheng J, Bucholts CA (1992) Shape-based interpolation. IEEE Comp Graph Appl 12:69–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Soille P (2002) Morphological image analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schroeder W, Martin K, Lorensen B (2003) The visualization toolkit: An object-oriented approach to 3D Graphics, 3rd edn., Kitware, Inc.

  25. Quanjer PHH, Tammeling GJ, Cotes J et al (1993) Lung volumes and forced ventilatory flows. Eur Respir J 6:5–40

    Google Scholar 

  26. Svanholm H, Starklint H, Gundersen HJ et al (1989) Reproducibility of histomorphologic diagnoses with special reference to the kappa statistic. APMIS 97:689–698

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang ZJ, Reddy GP, Gotway MB et al (2004) Malignant pleural mesothelioma: evaluation with CT, MR imaging, and PET. Radiographics 24:105–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Knuutila A, Kivisaari L, Kivisaari A et al (2001) Evaluation of leural disease using MR and CT. With special reference to malignant pleural mesothelioma. Acta Radiol 42:502–507

    Google Scholar 

  29. Eibel R, Tuengerthal S, Schoenberg SO (2003) The role of new imaging techniques in diagnosis and staging of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Curr Op in Oncol 15:131–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Van Klaveren RJ, Aerts JGJV, de Bruin HG et al (2006) Inadequacy of the RECIST criteria for the evaluation of response in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 43:63–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Yamamuro M, Gerbaudo VH, Gill RR et al (2007) Morphologic and functional imaging of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur J Radiol 64(3):356–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Armato SG, Entwise J, Truong MT, et al. (2007) Current state and future directions of pleural mesothelioma imaging. Lung Cancer 2007 Nov 29, Epub ahead of print. DOI 10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.09.027

  33. Plathow C, Walz M, Lichy MP, et al. (2008) Cost considerations of whole-body MRI and PET/CT as part of oncologic staging. Radiologe 2008. Epub ahead of print. 10.1007/s00117–007–1547-z

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

There is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Plathow.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1732-8

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Plathow, C., Klopp, M., Thieke, C. et al. Therapy response in malignant pleural mesothelioma-role of MRI using RECIST, modified RECIST and volumetric approaches in comparison with CT. Eur Radiol 18, 1635–1643 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-0918-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-0918-9

Keywords

Navigation