Cargando…
RECIST 1.1 and lesion selection: How to deal with ambiguity at baseline?
Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) is still the predominant criteria base for assessing tumor burden in oncology clinical trials. Despite several improvements that followed its first publication, RECIST continues to allow readers a lot of freedom in their evaluations. Notably in t...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7973344/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33738548 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-00976-w |
_version_ | 1783666826268377088 |
---|---|
author | Iannessi, Antoine Beaumont, Hubert Liu, Yan Bertrand, Anne-Sophie |
author_facet | Iannessi, Antoine Beaumont, Hubert Liu, Yan Bertrand, Anne-Sophie |
author_sort | Iannessi, Antoine |
collection | PubMed |
description | Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) is still the predominant criteria base for assessing tumor burden in oncology clinical trials. Despite several improvements that followed its first publication, RECIST continues to allow readers a lot of freedom in their evaluations. Notably in the selection of tumors at baseline. This subjectivity is the source of many suboptimal evaluations. When starting a baseline analysis, radiologists cannot always identify tumor malignancy with any certainty. Also, with RECIST, some findings can be deemed equivocal by radiologists with no confirmatory ground truth to rely on. In the specific case of Blinded Independent Central Review clinical trials with double reads using RECIST, the selection of equivocal tumors can have two major consequences: inter-reader variability and modified sensitivity of the therapeutic response. Apart from the main causes leading to the selection of an equivocal lesion, due to the uncertainty of the radiological characteristics or due to the censoring of on-site evaluations, several other situations can be described more precisely. These latter involve cases where an equivocal is selected as target or non-target lesions, the management of equivocal lymph nodes and the case of few target lesions. In all cases, awareness of the impact of selecting a non-malignant lesion will lead radiologists to make selections in the most rational way. Also, in clinical trials where the primary endpoint differs between phase 2 (response-related) and phase 3 (progression-related) trials, our impact analysis will help them to devise strategies for the management of equivocal lesions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7973344 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79733442021-04-12 RECIST 1.1 and lesion selection: How to deal with ambiguity at baseline? Iannessi, Antoine Beaumont, Hubert Liu, Yan Bertrand, Anne-Sophie Insights Imaging Educational Review Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) is still the predominant criteria base for assessing tumor burden in oncology clinical trials. Despite several improvements that followed its first publication, RECIST continues to allow readers a lot of freedom in their evaluations. Notably in the selection of tumors at baseline. This subjectivity is the source of many suboptimal evaluations. When starting a baseline analysis, radiologists cannot always identify tumor malignancy with any certainty. Also, with RECIST, some findings can be deemed equivocal by radiologists with no confirmatory ground truth to rely on. In the specific case of Blinded Independent Central Review clinical trials with double reads using RECIST, the selection of equivocal tumors can have two major consequences: inter-reader variability and modified sensitivity of the therapeutic response. Apart from the main causes leading to the selection of an equivocal lesion, due to the uncertainty of the radiological characteristics or due to the censoring of on-site evaluations, several other situations can be described more precisely. These latter involve cases where an equivocal is selected as target or non-target lesions, the management of equivocal lymph nodes and the case of few target lesions. In all cases, awareness of the impact of selecting a non-malignant lesion will lead radiologists to make selections in the most rational way. Also, in clinical trials where the primary endpoint differs between phase 2 (response-related) and phase 3 (progression-related) trials, our impact analysis will help them to devise strategies for the management of equivocal lesions. Springer International Publishing 2021-03-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7973344/ /pubmed/33738548 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-00976-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Educational Review Iannessi, Antoine Beaumont, Hubert Liu, Yan Bertrand, Anne-Sophie RECIST 1.1 and lesion selection: How to deal with ambiguity at baseline? |
title | RECIST 1.1 and lesion selection: How to deal with ambiguity at baseline? |
title_full | RECIST 1.1 and lesion selection: How to deal with ambiguity at baseline? |
title_fullStr | RECIST 1.1 and lesion selection: How to deal with ambiguity at baseline? |
title_full_unstemmed | RECIST 1.1 and lesion selection: How to deal with ambiguity at baseline? |
title_short | RECIST 1.1 and lesion selection: How to deal with ambiguity at baseline? |
title_sort | recist 1.1 and lesion selection: how to deal with ambiguity at baseline? |
topic | Educational Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7973344/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33738548 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-00976-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT iannessiantoine recist11andlesionselectionhowtodealwithambiguityatbaseline AT beaumonthubert recist11andlesionselectionhowtodealwithambiguityatbaseline AT liuyan recist11andlesionselectionhowtodealwithambiguityatbaseline AT bertrandannesophie recist11andlesionselectionhowtodealwithambiguityatbaseline |