Maka N. Kekelidze MD, PhD, Presenter: Nothing to Disclose

Joachim Hohmann MD, DIPLPHYS, Abstract Co-Author: Research funded, Bayer AG Research funded, Siemens AG

Pietro Lodise, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Matthias Rasmus MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Georg M. Bongartz MD, Abstract Co-Author: Research Grant, Bayer AG Research Grant, Siemens AG

1. To illustrate 10 pitfalls that confound the interpretation of radiologic tumor response monitoring. 2. To learn about the negative consequences caused by these pitfalls. 3. To provide practical tips how to avoid them in clinical practice.    

Main pitfalls in tumor response interpretation:  1. Assignment of non-qualifying target lesions (number, size, pseudolesions); 2. Measurement of non-reproducible targets: irregularly shaped, merging/splitting lesions; 3. Misinterpretation of bone metastases; 4. Choice of inadequate response criteria (e.g. RECIST, Choi, Cheson, mRECIST, PERCIST);  5.Consideration of reappearing lesions as progressive disease; 6. Wrong definition of Baseline/Nadir as reference; 7. Inconsistencies of lesion definition/measurements in follow-up; 8. Miscalculation of time-point response (mixed response); 9. Inconsideration of clinical data or further imaging results; 10. Comparison of inconsistent modalities and/or protocols Conclusion: Radiologists should be aware of pitfalls in tumor response evaluation which dramatically influences oncologic treatment decision. Proper application of available response criteria with thorough knowledge of thier limitations can lower the negative implications for patient care and increase the efficiency of imaging based tumor response evaluation.  

http://abstract.rsna.org/uploads/2014/14018361/14018361_pko1.pdf

Kekelidze, M, Hohmann, J, Lodise, P, Rasmus, M, Bongartz, G, Oncologic Imaging: Typical Pitfalls in Tumor Response Evaluation.  Radiological Society of North America 2014 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, - ,Chicago IL. http://archive.rsna.org/2014/14018361.html