. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jul 28.

Published in final edited form as: Phys Med Biol. 2018 Jul 19;63(14):145020. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/aacd22

Table 3.

Comparison with studies using CT for esophageal cancer response evaluation. Negative sign (−) indicates shrinkage.

Study	Patient number	Follow-up CT	Change in tu	mor volume	Sensitivity	Specificity	AUC	p	Response criteria
Study	Patient number	Follow-up CT	Responders	Non-responders	Sensitivity	Specificity	AUC	p	Response criteria
Jones et al. ^{(Jones et al., 1999)}	50	4-5 w post-Chemo	−11.6% (tumor length) −33.3% (esophageal wall thickness)		65%	33%	–	0.22	AJCC^a
van Heijl et al. ^{(van Heijl et al., 2011)}	39	14 d during CRT	12%	22%	19%	92%	0.63	0.18	Mandard^b
Beer et al. ^{(Beer et al., 2006)}	21	14 d during Chemo	−24%	−16%	100%	53%	0.73	0.04	Mandard^b
Griffith et al. ^(Griffith ^{et al.,} ¹⁹⁹⁹⁾	45	6 d (1-17d) post-CRT	~−55%	~−35%	–	–	–	0.58	Mandard^b
Conventional volume change⁺	20	4-6 w post-CRT	−33%	−36%	64%	67%	0.58	0.6	Mandard^b
Jacobian map	20	4-6 w post-CRT	−20%	5%	94.4%	91.8%	0.94	0.0002	Mandard^b

American Joint Committee on Cancer (Edge and Compton, 2010).

⁺

Current study.