Cargando…
Therapeutic response assessment using 3D ultrasound for hepatic metastasis from colorectal cancer: Application of a personalized, 3D-printed tumor model using CT images
BACKGROUND & AIMS: To evaluate accuracy and reliability of three-dimensional ultrasound (3D US) for response evaluation of hepatic metastasis from colorectal cancer (CRC) using a personalized 3D-printed tumor model. METHODS: Twenty patients with liver metastasis from CRC who underwent baseline a...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5552302/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28797089 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182596 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND & AIMS: To evaluate accuracy and reliability of three-dimensional ultrasound (3D US) for response evaluation of hepatic metastasis from colorectal cancer (CRC) using a personalized 3D-printed tumor model. METHODS: Twenty patients with liver metastasis from CRC who underwent baseline and after chemotherapy CT, were retrospectively included. Personalized 3D-printed tumor models using CT were fabricated. Two radiologists measured volume of each 3D printing model using 3D US. With CT as a reference, we compared difference between CT and US tumor volume. The response evaluation was based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. RESULTS: 3D US tumor volume showed no significant difference from CT volume (7.18 ± 5.44 mL, 8.31 ± 6.32 mL vs 7.42 ± 5.76 mL in CT, p>0.05). 3D US provided a high correlation coefficient with CT (r = 0.953, r = 0.97) as well as a high inter-observer intraclass correlation (0.978; 0.958–0.988). Regarding response, 3D US was in agreement with CT in 17 and 18 out of 20 patients for observer 1 and 2 with excellent agreement (κ = 0.961). CONCLUSIONS: 3D US tumor volume using a personalized 3D-printed model is an accurate and reliable method for the response evaluation in comparison with CT tumor volume. |
---|