Characteristics of abdomen and pelvis CT scan's evaluation of patients with malignancies

Natalia Staver

doi:10.30574/gscbps.2020.13.1.0258

Authors

Natalia Staver PhD student, Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging “Nicolae Testemitanu” State University of Medicine and Pharmacy from Moldova, 165 Ștefan cel Mare și Sfânt Street, MD-2004, Chișinau, Republic of Moldova.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30574/gscbps.2020.13.1.0258

Keywords:

Oncology statistics, Computed tomography, Abdominal neoplasms, Pelvic neoplasms, Staging in oncology, Post-processing programs.

Abstract

According to the American Cancer Center, cancer causes about 1 in 6 deaths worldwide, more than AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria taken together, it is the second leading cause of death, after cardiovascular disease. Imaging examinations to examine the abdomen and pelvis are the methods of choice in detecting neoplastic formations with the provision of information that is essential for the subsequent management of these patients.

From the PubMed databases and the Google Scholar search engine, the articles published during 2010-2020 were selected, according to the keywords: oncology statistics, oncology imaging, computed tomography, abdominal neoplasms, pelvic neoplasms, oncology staging, post-processing programs in computed tomography, follow-up of cancer patients, diagnostic algorithms. Information on international scientific studies on oncological pathology statistics has been selected and processed globally, according to data from the American Cancer Center and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, innovative methods for assessing the staging of patients with abdominal and pelvic neoplasms, and modern post processing in the case of examination by computed tomography of abdominal and pelvic neoplasms patients.

After processing the information in the Google Scholar and PubMed database, according to the search criteria, 346 articles on the proposed topic were found. The final bibliography contains 176 relevant sources, of which 77 were considered representative for the elaboration of this synthesis article.

We must aim to justify, optimize and customize each imaging procedure for patients with neoplasms, as they are frequently exposed to imaging examinations.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

American Cancer Society. Global Cancer Facts & Figures 4th Edition. Atlanta: American Cancer Society. 2018.

National Institutes of Health (NIH). Understanding clinical studies [Internet]. October 18, 2016.

Inskip PD, Curtis RE. New malignancies following childhood cancer in the United States, 1973–2002. International Journal of Cancer. 2007; 121: 2233–2240.

Bhatia S, Yasui Y, Robison LL et al. High risk of subsequent neoplasms continues with extended follow-up of childhood Hodgkin’s disease: report from the Late Effects Study Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2003; 21: 4386–4394.

Bhatti P, Veiga LH, Ronckers CX et al. Risk of second primary thyroid cancer after radiotherapy for a childhood cancer in a large cohort study: an update from the childhood cancer survivor study. Radiation Research. 2010; 174: 741–752.

A Radiology Reporting Initiative [Internet]. 2016.

Practice guideline for communication of diagnostic imaging findings [Internet]. ACR. 2020.

Ferlay J. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. International Journal of Cancer. 2018.

Béatrice Lauby-Secretan, Chiara Scoccianti, Dana Loomis et al. Body Fatness and Cancer – Viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2016; 375: 794-798.

Rodney J Hicks, Robert E Ware, Eddie W F Lau PET/CT: will it change the way that we use CT in cancer imaging? Cancer Imaging. 2006; 6(Spec No A): S52–S62.

Park Y, Colditz GA. Diabetes and adiposity: a heavy load for cancer. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 2018; 6: 82-83.

Daniel Carl Sullivan, Lawrence H. Schwartz and Binsheng Zhao. The Imaging Viewpoint: How Imaging Affects Determination of Progression-Free Survival. Clinical Cancer Research. 2013; CCR-12-2936: 19(10).

World Health Organization. WHO handbook of reporting result of cancer treatment. Geneva, Switzerland: JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2000; 92(3): 205–216.

Therasse P, SG Arbuck, EA Eisenhauer, J Wanders. 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. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2000; 92: 205–16.

Serup-Hansen E. Variation in gross tumor volume delineation using CT, MRI, and FDG-PET in planning radiotherapy of anal cancer. Journal of the Clinical Oncology. 30, 2012.

Winer-Muram HT, S Gregory Jennings, Cristopher A Meyer. Effects of varying CT section width on volumetric measurement of lung tumors and application of compensatory equations. Radiology. 2003; 229: 184–94.

Zhao B, Lawrence H Schwartz, Chaya S Moskowitz. Effect of CT slice thickness on measurements of pulmonary metastases – initial experience. Radiology. 2005; 234: 934–9.

Petrou M, Leslie E Quint, Bin Nan, Laurence H Baker. Pulmonary nodule volumetric measurement variability as a function of CT slice thickness and nodule morphology. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2007; 188: 306–12.

Zhao B, Leonard P James, Chaya S Moskowitz. Evaluating variability in tumor measurements from same-day repeat CT scans in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology. 2009; 252: 263–72.

Reiner CS, Christoph Karlo, Henrik Petrowsky. Preoperative liver volumetry: how does the slice thickness influence the multidetector computed tomography- and magnetic resonance-liver volume measurements? Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography. 2009; 33: 390–7.

Wang Y, ș.a. Volumetric measurement of pulmonary nodules at low-dose chest CT: effect of reconstruction setting on measurement variability. Eur Radiol. 2010; 20: 1180–7.

Oxnard GR, Binsheng Zhao, Camelia S. Sima et al. Variability of lung tumor measurements on repeat computed tomography scans taken within 15 minutes. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2011; 29: 3114–9.

Tan Y, Pingzhen Guo, Helen Mann. Assessing the effect of computed tomographic (CT) slice thickness on unidimensional (1D), bidimensional (2D) and volumetric measurements of solid tumors. Cancer Imaging. 2012; 12: 497–505.

Erasmus JJ, Gregory W Gladish, Lyle Broemeling. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2003; 21: 2574–82.

Hopper KD, CJ Kasales, MA Van Slyke et al. Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1996; 167: 851–4.

Wormanns D, Gerhard Kohl, Ernst Klotz et al.Volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules at multi-row detector CT: in vivo reproducibility. European Radiology. 2004; 14: 86–92.

Goodman LR, Meltem Gulsun, Lacey Washington. Inherent Variability of CT lung nodule measurements in vivo using semiautomated volumetric measurements. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2006; 186: 989–94.

Punnen S, Massom A Haider, Gina Lockwood. Variability in size measurement of renal masses smaller than 4 cm on computerized tomography. Journal of Urology. 2006; 176: 2386–90.

Zhao B, Y Tan, DJ Bell. Exploring manual and computer-aided intra- and inter-reader variability in tumor uni-dimensional (1D), bi-dimensional (2D) and volumetric measurements. European Journal of Radiology. 11 Mar 2013.

Schwartz LH, Ginsberg MS, DeCorato D et al. Evaluation of tumor measurements in oncology: use of film-based and electronic techniques. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2000; 18: 2179–84.

Eisenhauer EA, P Therasse, J Bogaerts et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). European Journal of Cancer. 2009; 45: 228–47.

Byrne MJ, Nowak AK. Modified RECIST criteria for assessment of response in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Annals of Oncology. 2004; 15: 257–60.

Ghassan K. Abou-Alfa, Lawrence Schwartz et al. Phase II study of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2006; 24: 4293–300.

Cheson BD, Beate Pfistner, Malik E. Juweid et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2007; 25: 579–86.

Choi HA. Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stomal tumors treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2007; 25: 1753–9.

Lencioni R, LIovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Seminars of Liver Disease. 2010; 30: 52–60.

Buckler AJ, Linda Bresolin, N Reed Dunnick et al. A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging. Radiology. 2011; 258: 906–14.

Dr. Robert A. Smith PhD, et al. American Cancer Society Guidelines for the Early Detection of Cancer. 2009.

Arnold R, Yuan-Jia Chen, Frederico Costa et al. ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the Standards of Care in Neuroendocrine Tumors: follow-up and documentation. Neuroendocrinology. 2009; 90(2): 227–233.

Oberg K, G Akerström, G Rindi. ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Neuroendocrine gastroenteropancreatic tumours: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Oncology. 2010; 21(Suppl 5): v223–v227.

Verslype C, Rosmorduc O, Rougier P. Hepatocellular carcinoma: ESMO-ESDO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Oncology. 2012 Oct; 23(suppl 7) vii 41–48.

Anil Arora, Ashish Kumar. Treatment Response Evaluation and Follow-up in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hepatology. 2014 Aug; 4(Suppl 3): S126–S129.

BrennerD, C Elliston, E Hall, W Berdon. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2001; 176: 289–296.

Donnelly LF, K H Emery, A S Brody. Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT: strategies at a large children’s hospital. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2001; 176: 303–306.

Haaga JR. Radiation dose management: weighing risk versus benefit. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2001; 177: 289–291.

Nickoloff EL, Alderson PO. Radiation exposures to patients from CT: reality, public perception, and policy. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2001; 177: 285–287.

Wilting JE, A Zwartkruis, M S van Leeuwen. A rational approach to dose reduction in CT: individualized scan protocols. European Radiology. 2001; 11: 2627–2632.

Boone JM, Estella M. Geraghty, J. Anthony Seibert. Dose reduction in pediatric CT: a rational approach. Radiology. 2003; 228: 352–360.

Linton OW, Mettler FA Jr. National conference on dose reduction in CT, with an emphasis on pediatric patients. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2003; 181: 321–329.

HaagaJR, F Miraldi, W MacIntyre. The effect of mAs variation upon computed tomography image quality as evaluated by in vivo and in vitro studies. Radiology.1981; 138: 449–454.

Kalpana M. Kanal, Brent K. Stewart, Orpheus Kolokythas. Impact of Operator-Selected Image Noise Index and Reconstruction Slice Thickness on Patient Radiation Dose in 64-MDCT. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2007; 189: 219-225.

Cynthia H. McCollough, Michael R. Bruesewitz, James M. Kofler, Jr. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation: experimental results and first patient studies [abstract]. Radiology. 1997; 205(P): 471.

KalenderWA, Wolf H, Suess C. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation: phantom measurements. Med Phys. 1999; 26: 2248–2253.

Hedvig Hricak , David J. Brenner, S. James Adelstein. Managing Radiation Use in Medical Imaging: A Multifaceted Challenge. 2011.

Radiation protection in medicine. ICRP publication 105. Annals ICRP. 2007; 37(6): 1–63.

American College of Radiology. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria. 2008.

Andre B. Bautista, Anthony Burgos, Barbara J. Nickel. Do Clinicians Use the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria in the Management of Their Patients? American Journal of Roentgenology. 2009; 192: 1581-1585.

Lifeng Yu, Xin Liu, Shuai Leng. Radiation dose reduction in computed tomography: techniques and future perspective. 2009; 1(1): 65–84.

Jacobi W. The concept of the effective dose – a proposal for the combination of organ doses. Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 1975; 12: 101–109.

International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP Publication 26) Oxford, UK: The International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1977.

McCollough CH, Schueler BA. Calculation of effective dose. Med. Phys. 2000; 27: 828–837.

International Commission on Radiological Protection: 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (Report 60) Annals of ICRP. 1991; 21: 1–3.

AAPM Report No. 96: The Measurement, Reporting, and Management of Radiation Dose in CT. American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group. 2008; 23.

National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements (NCRP) [Accessed 9 August 2009];Report no. 160: ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States (Press Release) 2009.

Cristy M. Mathematical Phantoms Representing Children of Various Ages for Use in Estimates of Internal Dose. TN, USA: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.1980.

DeMarco JJ, Cagnon CH, Cody DD, et al. Estimating radiation doses from multidetector CT using Monte Carlo simulations: effects of different size voxelized patient models on magnitudes of organ and effective dose. Phys. Med. Biol. 2007; 52: 2583–2597.

Huda W, Bushong SC. In x-ray computed tomography, technique factors should be selected appropriate to patient size. Med. Phys. 2001; 28: 1543–1545.

Frush DP. Strategies of dose reduction. Pediatr. Radiol. 2002; 32: 293–297.

Huda W, Lieberman KA, Chang J, Roskopf ML. Patient size and x-ray technique factors in head computed tomography examinations. I. Radiation doses. Med. Phys. 2004; 31: 588–594.

Huda W, Lieberman KA, Chang J, Roskopf ML. Patient size and x-ray technique factors in head computed tomography examinations. II. Image quality. Med. Phys. 2004; 31: 595–601.

Nyman U, Ahl TL, Kristiansson M, Nilsson L, Wettemark S. Patient-circumference-adapted dose regulation in body computed tomography. A practical and flexible formula. Acta Radiol. 2005; 46: 396–406.

McCollough CH. CT dose: how to measure, how to reduce. Health Phys. 2008; 95: 508–517.

Gies M, Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. I. Simulation studies. Med. Phys. 1999; 26: 2235–2247.

Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. II. Phantom measurements. Med. Phys. 1999; 26: 2248–2253.

Haaga JR, Miraldi F, MacIntyre W, et al. The effect of mAs variation upon computed tomography image quality as evaluated by in vivo and in vitro studies. Radiology. 1981; 138: 449–454.

Lifeng Yu, Xin Liu, Shuai Leng et al. Radiation dose reduction in computed tomography: techniques and future perspective. Imaging Med. 2009 Oct; 1(1): 65–84.

McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM., Jr CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics. 2006; 26: 503–512.