Intra- and inter-observer variability in measurement of target lesions: implication on response evaluation according to RECIST 1.1
Open Access
- 1 January 2012
- journal article
- Published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH in Radiology and Oncology
- Vol. 46 (1), 8-18
- https://doi.org/10.2478/v10019-012-0009-z
Abstract
The assessment of cancer treatment in oncological clinical trials is usually based on serial measurements of tumours' size according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) guidelines. The aim of our study was to evaluate the variability of measurements of target lesions by readers as well as the impact on response evaluation, workflow and reporting. Twenty oncologic patients were included to the study with CT examinations from thorax to pelvis performed at a 64 slices CT scanner. Four readers defined and measured the size of target lesions independently at baseline and follow-up with PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System) and LMS (Lesion Management Solutions, Median technologies, Valbonne Sophia Antipolis, France), according to the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Variability in measurements using PACS or LMS software was established with the Bland and Altman approach. The inter- and intra-observer variabilities were calculated for identical lesions and the overall response per case was determined. In addition, time required for evaluation and reporting in each case was recorded. For single lesions, the median intra-observer variability ranged from 4.9-9.6% (mean 5.9%) and the median inter-observer variability from 4.3-11.4% (mean 7.1%), respecting different evaluation time points, image systems and observers. Nevertheless, the variability in change of Δ sum longest diameter (LD), mandatory for classification of the overall response, was 24%. The overall response evaluation assessed by a single respectively different observer was discrepant in 6.3% respectively 12% of the cases compared with the mean results of multiple observers. The mean case evaluation time was 286s vs. 228s at baseline and 267s vs. 196s at follow-up for PACS and LMS, respectively. Uni-dimensional measurements of target lesions show low intra- and inter-observer variabilities, but the high variability in change of Δ sum LD shows the potential for misclassification of the overall response according to the RECIST 1.1 guidelines. Nevertheless, the reproducibility of RECIST reporting can be improved for the case assessment by a single observer and by mean results of multiple observers. Case-based evaluation time was shortened up to 27% using custom software.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- 3T MRI in evaluation of asbestos-related thoracic diseases - preliminary resultsRadiology and Oncology, 2010
- Diffusion weighted MR imaging in the differential diagnosis of haemangiomas and metastases of the liverRadiology and Oncology, 2010
- Volumetric measurement of pulmonary nodules at low-dose chest CT: effect of reconstruction setting on measurement variabilityEuropean Radiology, 2009
- Evaluation of the Optimal Number of Lesions Needed for Tumor Evaluation Using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group InvestigationJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2009
- Perfusion Computed Tomography for Monitoring Induction Chemotherapy in Patients With Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Upper Aerodigestive TractJournal of Computer Assisted Tomography, 2009
- Noncalcified Lung Nodules: Volumetric Assessment with Thoracic CTRadiology, 2009
- Semi-Automated Quantification of Hepatic Lesions in a PhantomInvestigative Radiology, 2009
- New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)European Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Imaging response assessment in oncologyCancer Imaging, 2006
- New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid TumorsJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2000