{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04480369515011547, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02678983833718245, 'mean_word_length': 5.206303724928366, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Dynamic Volume Perfusion Computed Tomography Parameters versus RECIST for the Prediction of Outcome in Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Conventional Chemotherapy

Introduction: To compare dynamic volume perfusion computed tomography (dVPCT) parameters with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1) for prediction of therapy response and overall survival (OS) in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients treated with conventional chemotherapy. Methods: A total of 173 lung cancer patients (131 men; 61 ± 10 years) undergoing dVPCT before (T1) and after chemotherapy (T2) and follow-up were prospectively included. dVPCT-derived blood flow, blood volume, mean transit time, and permeability (PERM) were assessed, compared between NSCLC and SCLC and patients’ response to therapy was determined according to RECIST 1.1. Results: One hundred of one hundred and seventy-three patients underwent dVPCT at T1 and T2 within a median of 44 (range, 31–108) days. dVPCT values were differing in NSCLC and SCLC, but were not significantly differing between patients with partial response, stable, or progressive disease. Eighty-five patients (NSCLC = 72 and SCLC = 13) with a follow-up for greater than or equal to 6 months were analyzed for OS. Fifty-six of eighty-five patients died during follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic analysis determined T1/T2 with highest predictive values regarding OS for blood flow, blood volume, mean transit time, and permeability (area under the curve: 0.53, 0.61, 0.54, and 0.53, respectively, all p > 0.05). Kaplan–Meier statistics revealed OS of patient groups assigned according to dVPCT T1/T2 cutoff values was not differing for neither dVPCT parameter, whereas RECIST groups significantly differed in OS (p = 0.02). Cox proportional hazards regression determined progressive disease status to independently predict OS (p = 0.004), while none of the dVPCT parameters did so. Conclusions: dVPCT values, differ between NSCLC and SCLC, are not related to RECIST 1.1 classification and do not improve OS prediction in lung cancer patients treated with conventional chemotherapy.