Comparison of Treatment Response Assessment for Stage IV NSCLC after Chemotherapy Between Non-Contrast and Contrast-Enhanced CT Scans of The Chest
Objective: To evaluate whether non-contrast chest CT (NCCT) images are as reliable as contrastenhanced chest CT (CECT) images for the assessment of treatment response after chemotherapy in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Material and method: A total of 87 patients with the stage IV NSCLC underwent chest CT for the assessment of tumor response after chemotherapy at Thammasat University Hospital between January 2014 and December 2016. Tumor response after chemotherapy of each patient was evaluated by using follow-up NCCT and CECT in comparison with the baseline CECT before chemotherapy based on RECIST criteria (version 1.1).
Result: Eighty-six (99%) of the 87 patients had the same treatment response results from both imaging sets. Only one case (1%) had a different result that was caused by a minimal difference
in the target lesions size. However, there was no change in the management of this patient. The statistical analysis showed almost perfect agreement between using follow-up NCCT and CECT in the assessment of tumor response after chemotherapy with a kappa value of 0.982 (95% confidence interval; 0.947, 1.017). There was no statistically significant difference in the target lesions size in the follow-up study obtained by NCCT and CECT (P - value = 0.350).
Conclusion: Using follow-up NCCT in comparison with the baseline CECT provides almost perfect agreement with follow-up CECT in the assessment of the tumor response after chemotherapy.
Therefore, NCCT can be a reasonable alternative to CECT for follow-up tumor response after chemotherapy especially in a patient with impaired renal function.
2. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394-424.
3. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(1):7-30.
4. Virani S, Bilheem S, Chansaard W, et al. National and Subnational Population-Based Incidence of Cancer in Thailand: Assessing Cancers with the Highest Burdens. Cancers. 2017;9(8):108.
5. Socinski MA, Evans T, Gettinger S, et al. Treatment of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013;143(5 Suppl):e341Se368S.
6. Hanna N, Johnson D, Temin S, et al. Systemic Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(30):3484-3515.
7. Darmon M, Ciroldi M, Thiery G, Schlemmer B, Azoulay E. Clinical review: specific aspects of acute renal failure in cancer patients. Crit Care. 2006;10(2):211.
8. Bhalla AS, Das A, Naranje P, Irodi A, Raj V, Boyal A. Imaging protocols for CT chest: A recommendation. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2019;29(3):236-246.
9. Ozkok S, Ozkok A. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury: A review of practical points. Workd J Nephrol. 2017;6(3):86-99.
10. Beckett KR, Moriarity AK, Langer JM. Safe Use of Contrast Media: What the Radiologist Need to Know. RadioGraphics. 2015;35(6):1738-1750.
11. Farolfi A, Della Luna C, Ragazzini A, et al. Taxanes as a risk factor for acute adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media in cancer patients. Oncologist. 2014;19(8):823-828.
12. Seeliger E, Sendeski M, Rihal CS, Persson PB. Contrast-induced kidney injury: mechanisms, risk factors, and prevention. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(16):2007-2015.
13. Mitchell AM, Jones AE, Tumlin JA, Kline JA. Incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy after contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the outpatient setting. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(1):4-9.
14. Detterbeck FC, Boffa DJ, Kim AW, Tanoue LT. The Eighth Edition Lung Cancer Stage Classification. Chest. 2017;151(1):193-203.
15. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228-247.
16. Tirkes T, Hollar MA, Tann M, Kohli MD, Akisik F, Sandrasegaran K. Response criteria in oncologic imaging: review of traditional and new criteria. Radiographics. 2013;33(5):1323-1341.
17. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174.
18. Patz EF Jr, Erasmus JJ, McAdams HP, et al. Lung cancer staging and management: comparison of contrast-enhanced and nonenhanced helical CT of the thorax. Radiology. 1999;212(1):56-60.
19. Cascade PN, Gross BH, Kazerooni EA, et al. Variability in the detection of enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes in staging lung cancer: a comparison of contrast-enhanced and unenhanced CT. Am J Roentgenol. 1998;170(4):927-931.
20. Semaan H, Bazerbashi MF, Siesel G, Aldinger P, Obri T. Diagnostic accuracy of non-contrast abdominal CT scans performed as followup for patient with an established cancer
diagnosis: a retrospective study. Acta Oncol. 2018;57(3):426-430.
21. Nazarian LN, Park JH, Halpern EJ, et al. Size of colorectal liver metastases at abdominal CT: comparison of precontrast and postcontrast studies. Radiology. 1999;213(3):825-830.