> Details

Schomburg, Laura; Malouhi, Amer; Grimm, Marc-Oliver; Ingwersen, Maja; Foller, Susan; Leucht, Katharina; Teichgräber, Ulf

iRECIST-based versus non-standardized free text reporting of CT scans for monitoring metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective comparison

Reference
management

Bookmarks

Remove from
bookmarks

Share this on Whatsapp

Close

Bookmarks



You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
  • Media type: E-Article
  • Title: iRECIST-based versus non-standardized free text reporting of CT scans for monitoring metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective comparison
  • Contributor: Schomburg, Laura; Malouhi, Amer; Grimm, Marc-Oliver; Ingwersen, Maja; Foller, Susan; Leucht, Katharina; Teichgräber, Ulf
  • imprint: Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2022
  • Published in: Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology
  • Language: English
  • DOI: 10.1007/s00432-022-03997-0
  • ISSN: 1432-1335; 0171-5216
  • Keywords: Cancer Research ; Oncology ; General Medicine
  • Origination:
  • Footnote:
  • Description: <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec> <jats:title>Purpose</jats:title> <jats:p>Therapy decision for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is highly dependent on disease monitoring based on radiological reports. The purpose of the study was to compare non-standardized, common practice free text reporting (FTR) on disease response with reporting based on response evaluation criteria in solid tumors modified for immune-based therapeutics (iRECIST).</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Methods</jats:title> <jats:p>Fifty patients with advanced mRCC were included in the retrospective, single-center study. CT scans had been evaluated and FTR prepared in accordance with center’s routine practice. For study purposes, reports were re-evaluated using a dedicated computer program that applied iRECIST. Patients were followed up over a period of 22.8 ± 7.9 months in intervals of 2.7 ± 1.8 months.</jats:p> <jats:p>Weighted kappa statistics was run to assess strength of agreement. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors for different rating.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>Agreement between FTR and iRECIST-based reporting was moderate (kappa 0.38 [95% CI 0.2–0.6] to 0.70 [95% CI 0.5–0.9]). Tumor response or progression according to FTR were not confirmed with iRECIST in 19 (38%) or 11 (22%) patients, respectively, in at least one follow-up examination. With FTR, new lesions were frequently not recognized if they were already identified in the recent prior follow-up examination (odds ratio for too favorable rating of disease response compared to iRECIST: 5.4 [95% CI 2.9–10.1].</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title> <jats:p>Moderate agreement between disease response according to FTR or iRECIST in patients with mRCC suggests the need of standardized quantitative radiological assessment in daily clinical practice.</jats:p> </jats:sec>