↓ Skip to main content

Changes of lung tumour volume on CT - prediction of the reliability of assessments

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Imaging, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Changes of lung tumour volume on CT - prediction of the reliability of assessments
Published in
Cancer Imaging, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40644-015-0052-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hubert Beaumont, Simon Souchet, Jean Marc Labatte, Antoine Iannessi, Anthony William Tolcher

Abstract

For oncological evaluations, quantitative radiology gives clinicians significant insight into patients' response to therapy. In regard to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), the classification of disease evolution partly consists in applying thresholds to the measurement of the relative change of tumour. In the case of tumour volumetry, response thresholds have not yet been established. This study proposes and validates a model for calculating thresholds for the detection of minimal tumour change when using the volume of pulmonary lesions on CT as imaging biomarker. Our work is based on the reliability analysis of tumour volume measurements documented by the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance. Statistics of measurements were entered into a multi-parametric mathematical model of the relative changes derived from the Geary-Hinkley transformation. The consistency of the model was tested by comparing modelled thresholds against Monte Carlo simulations of tumour volume measurements with additive random error. The model has been validated by repeating measurements on real patient follow ups. For unchanged tumour volume, relying on a normal distribution of error, the agreement between model and simulations featured a type I error of 5.25 %. Thus, we established that a threshold of 35 % of volume reduction corresponds to a partial response (PR) and a 55 % volume increase corresponds to progressive disease (PD). Changes between -35 and +55 % are categorized as stable disease (SD). Tested on real clinical data, 97.1 % [95.7; 98.0] of assessments fall into the range of variability predicted by our model of confidence interval. Our study indicates that the Geary Hinkley model, using published statistics, is appropriate to predict response thresholds for the volume of pulmonary lesions on CT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 24%
Student > Master 4 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 20%
Physics and Astronomy 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 10 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 November 2015.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Imaging
#393
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,014
of 294,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Imaging
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 294,977 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.