Comparison of unidimensional and bidimensional measurements in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer
J. Cortés (1), J Rodríguez (1), J.A. Díaz-González (3), C. Garzón (1), A. Gúrpide (1), L. Arbea (1), I. Gil-Bazo (1), V. Navarro (1), M. Cambeiro (1), A.I. Nicolás (2), S. Martín-Algarra (1), J. García-Foncillas (1) and E. Calvo (4)
(1) Department of Oncology, Clínica Universitaria de Navarra, Avenida de Pío XII, 36, 31008 Pamplona, Spain;
(2) Department of Radiology, Clínica Universitaria de Navarra, Avenida de Pío XII, 36, 31008 Pamplona, Spain;
(3) Department of Oncology, Gregorio Marañón Hospital, 28007 Madrid, Spain;
(4) Department of Oncology, San Jaime Hospital, 03280 Torrevieja, Alicante, Spain
Tumour response evaluation after chemotherapy has become crucial in the development of many drugs. In contrast to the standard bidimensional WHO criteria, the recently described Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors are based on unidimensional measurements.
The aim of the present study was to compare both methods in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. One hundred and sixty-four patients treated with two cisplatin-paclitaxel-based chemotherapy schedules between June 1994 and December 2000 were analysed. The measurements were reviewed by an independent panel of radiologists. Patient characteristics were: median age of 55 years (range 24-77 years) and a male to female ratio of 129 : 35.
Adenocarcinoma and squamous carcinoma were the most common histologies. Vinorelbine was the third drug used in 77 patients and gemcitabine in 87. The ratio unidimensional/bidimensional was as follows: response 85 : 85; stable disease 32 : 32; progression 47 : 42 and not assessable 0 : 5. Kappa for agreement between responders was 0.951 (95% CI: 0.795-1.0) (P<0.001). Both WHO criteria and Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors give similar results in assessing tumour response in patients with non-small cell lung cancer after chemotherapy.
The unidimensional measurement could replace the more complex bidimensional one.
CITATION Br J Cancer. 2002 Jul 15;87(2):158-60