RESUMO
Background: The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology for Brain Metastases (RANO-BM) criteria are the gold standard for assessing brain metastases (BMs) treatment response. However, they are limited by their reliance on 1D, despite the routine use of high-resolution T1-weighted MRI scans for BMs, which allows for 3D measurements. Our study aimed to investigate whether volumetric measurements could improve the response assessment in patients with BMs. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated a dataset comprising 783 BMs and analyzed the response of 185 of them from 132 patients who underwent stereotactic radiotherapy between 2007 and 2021 at 5 hospitals. We used T1-weighted MRIs to compute the volume of the lesions. For the volumetric criteria, progressive disease was defined as at least a 30% increase in volume, and partial response was characterized by a 20% volume reduction. Results: Our study showed that the proposed volumetric criteria outperformed the RANO-BM criteria in several aspects: (1) Evaluating every lesion, while RANO-BM failed to evaluate 9.2% of them. (2) Classifying response effectively in 140 lesions, compared to only 72 lesions classified by RANO-BM. (3) Identifying BM recurrences a median of 3.3 months earlier than RANO-BM criteria. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the superiority of volumetric criteria in improving the response assessment of BMs compared to the RANO-BM criteria. Our proposed criteria allow for evaluation of every lesion, regardless of its size or shape, better classification, and enable earlier identification of progressive disease. Volumetric criteria provide a standardized, reliable, and objective tool for assessing treatment response.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: MRI is assumed to be valid for distinguishing metastatic vertebral fractures (MVFs) from osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs). This study assessed (1) concordance between the image-based diagnosis of MVF versus OVF and the reference (biopsy or follow-up of >6 months), (2) interobserver and intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings and the diagnosis of MVF versus OVF, and (3) whether disclosing a patient's history of cancer leads to variations in diagnosis, concordance, or agreement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included clinical data and imaging from 203 patients with confirmed MVF or OVF provided to 25 clinicians (neurosurgeons, radiologists, orthopedic surgeons, and radiation oncologists). From January 2018 through October 2018, the clinicians interpreted images in conditions as close as possible to routine practice. Each specialist assessed data twice, with a minimum 6-week interval, blinded to assessments made by other clinicians and to their own previous assessments. The kappa statistic was used to assess interobserver and intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings, diagnosis (MVF vs OVF), and concordance with the reference. Subgroup analyses were based on clinicians' specialty, years of experience, and complexity of the hospital where they worked. RESULTS: For diagnosis of MVF versus OVF, interobserver agreement was fair, whereas intraobserver agreement was substantial. Only the latter improved to almost perfect when a patient's history of cancer was disclosed. Interobserver agreement for key imaging findings was fair or moderate, whereas intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings was moderate or substantial. Concordance between the diagnosis of MVF versus OVF and the reference was moderate. Results were similar regardless of clinicians' specialty, experience, and hospital category. CONCLUSIONS: When MRI is used to distinguish MVF versus OVF, interobserver agreement and concordance with the reference were moderate. These results cast doubt on the reliability of basing such a diagnosis on MRI in routine practice.
