Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the response evaluation of cancer therapy according to RECIST and WHO-criteria
- 1 January 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis Ltd in Acta Oncologica
- Vol. 49 (4), 509-514
- https://doi.org/10.3109/02841861003705794
Abstract
Background. Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) and WHO-criteria are used to evaluate treatment effects in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to examine interobserver and intraobserver variations in radiological response assessment using these criteria. Material and methods. Thirty-nine patients were eligible. Each patient's series of CT images were reviewed. Each patient was classified into one of four categories according RECIST and WHO-criteria. To examine interobserver variation, response classifications were independently obtained by two radiologists. One radiologist repeated the procedure on two additional different occasions to examine intraobserver variation. Kappa statistics was applied to examine agreement. Results. Interobserver variation using RECIST and WHO-criteria were 0.53 (95% CI 0.33–0.72) and 0.60 (0.39–0.80), respectively. Response rates (RR) according to RECIST obtained by reader A and reader B were 33% and 21%, respectively. RR according to WHO-criteria obtained by reader A and reader B were 33% and 23% respectively. Intraobserver variation using RECIST and WHO-criteria ranged between 0.76–0.96 and 0.86–0.91, respectively. Conclusion. Radiological tumor response evaluation according to RECIST and WHO-criteria are subject to considerable inter- and intraobserver variability. Efforts are necessary to reduce inconsistencies from current response evaluation criteria.This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Assessment of Interobserver Reproducibility in Quantitative 18F-FDG PET and CT Measurements of Tumor Response to TherapyJournal of Nuclear Medicine, 2009
- The minimum number of target lesions that need to be measured to be representative of the total number of target lesions (according to RECIST)The British Journal of Radiology, 2009
- New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)European Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Radiological assessment of tumour response to anti-cancer drugs: Time to reappraiseActa Oncologica, 2008
- Computer-assisted lung nodule volumetry from multi-detector row CT: Influence of image reconstruction parametersEuropean Journal of Radiology, 2007
- CT of Colon Cancer Metastases to the Liver Using Modified RECIST Criteria: Determining the Ideal Number of Target Lesions to MeasureAmerican Journal of Roentgenology, 2006
- Inadequacy of manual measurements compared to automated CT volumetry in assessment of treatment response of pulmonary metastases using RECIST criteriaEuropean Radiology, 2005
- Comparison of treatment response classifications between unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric measurements of metastatic lung lesions on chest computed tomography1Academic Radiology, 2004
- Measuring Response in Solid Tumors: Comparison of RECIST and WHO Response CriteriaJapanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2003
- New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid TumorsJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2000