RECIST 1.1 Assessments Variability: a Systematic Pictorial Review of Blinded Double Reads

Overview

Journal Insights Imaging

Publisher Springer

Specialty Radiology

Date 2024 Aug 7

PMID 39112819

Authors

Antoine Iannessi

Hubert Beaumont

Christine Ojango

Anne-Sophie Bertrand

Yan Liu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Reader variability is intrinsic to radiologic oncology assessments, necessitating measures to enhance consistency and accuracy. RECIST 1.1 criteria play a crucial role in mitigating this variability by standardizing evaluations, aiming to establish an accepted "truth" confirmed by histology or patient survival. Clinical trials utilize Blind Independent Centralized Review (BICR) techniques to manage variability, employing double reads and adjudicators to address inter-observer discordance effectively. It is essential to dissect the root causes of variability in response assessments, with a specific focus on the factors influencing RECIST evaluations. We propose proactive measures for radiologists to address variability sources such as radiologist expertise, image quality, and accessibility of contextual information, which significantly impact interpretation and assessment precision. Adherence to standardization and RECIST guidelines is pivotal in diminishing variability and ensuring uniform results across studies. Variability factors, including lesion selection, new lesion appearance, and confirmation bias, can have profound implications on assessment accuracy and interpretation, underscoring the importance of identifying and addressing these factors. Delving into the causes of variability aids in enhancing the accuracy and consistency of response assessments in oncology, underscoring the role of standardized evaluation protocols and mitigating risk factors that contribute to variability. Access to contextual information is crucial. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: By understanding the causes of diagnosis variability, we can enhance the accuracy and consistency of response assessments in oncology, ultimately improving patient care and clinical outcomes. KEY POINTS: Baseline lesion selection and detection of new lesions play a major role in the occurrence of discordance. Image interpretation is influenced by contextual information, the lack of which can lead to diagnostic uncertainty. Radiologists must be trained in RECIST criteria to reduce errors and variability.

References

Zimmermann M, Kuhl C, Engelke H, Bettermann G, Keil S . Volumetric measurements of target lesions: does it improve inter-reader variability for oncological response assessment according to RECIST 1.1 guidelines compared to standard unidimensional measurements?. Pol J Radiol. 2021; 86:e594-e600. PMC: 8634421. DOI: 10.5114/pjr.2021.111048. View

Eisenhauer E, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz L, Sargent D, Ford R . New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2008; 45(2):228-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026. View

Schmid A, Raunig D, Miller C, Walovitch R, Ford R, OConnor M . Radiologists and Clinical Trials: Part 1 The Truth About Reader Disagreements. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2021; 55(6):1111-1121. PMC: 8259547. DOI: 10.1007/s43441-021-00316-6. View

Watanabe H, Kunitoh H, Yamamoto S, Kawasaki S, Inoue A, Hotta K . Effect of the introduction of minimum lesion size on interobserver reproducibility using RECIST guidelines in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Cancer Sci. 2006; 97(3):214-8. PMC: 11158339. DOI: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2006.00157.x. View

Coleman R, Mashiter G, Whitaker K, Moss D, Rubens R, Fogelman I . Bone scan flare predicts successful systemic therapy for bone metastases. J Nucl Med. 1988; 29(8):1354-9. View

Ellingson B, Brown M, Boxerman J, Gerstner E, Kaufmann T, Cole P . Radiographic read paradigms and the roles of the central imaging laboratory in neuro-oncology clinical trials. Neuro Oncol. 2020; 23(2):189-198. PMC: 7906061. DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noaa253. View

Darkeh M, Suzuki C, Torkzad M . The minimum number of target lesions that need to be measured to be representative of the total number of target lesions (according to RECIST). Br J Radiol. 2009; 82(980):681-6. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/72829563. View

Krasovitsky M, Lee Y, Sim H, Chawla T, Moore H, Moses D . Interobserver and intraobserver variability of RECIST assessment in ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022; 32(5):656-661. DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-003319. View

Beaumont H, Iannessi A, Wang Y, Voyton C, Cillario J, Liu Y . Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) in New Therapeutic Lung Cancer Trials. Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13(18). PMC: 8465869. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13184533. View

10.

Busby L, Courtier J, Glastonbury C . Bias in Radiology: The How and Why of Misses and Misinterpretations. Radiographics. 2017; 38(1):236-247. PMC: 5790309. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2018170107. View

11.

Fournier L, de Geus-Oei L, Regge D, Oprea-Lager D, DAnastasi M, Bidaut L . Twenty Years On: RECIST as a Biomarker of Response in Solid Tumours an EORTC Imaging Group - ESOI Joint Paper. Front Oncol. 2022; 11:800547. PMC: 8784734. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.800547. View

12.

Tovoli F, Renzulli M, Negrini G, Brocchi S, Ferrarini A, Andreone A . Inter-operator variability and source of errors in tumour response assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib. Eur Radiol. 2018; 28(9):3611-3620. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5393-3. View

13.

Schwartz L, Bogaerts J, Ford R, Shankar L, Therasse P, Gwyther S . Evaluation of lymph nodes with RECIST 1.1. Eur J Cancer. 2008; 45(2):261-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.028. View

14.

Berbaum K, Franken Jr E, Dorfman D, Rooholamini S, Kathol M, Barloon T . Satisfaction of search in diagnostic radiology. Invest Radiol. 1990; 25(2):133-40. DOI: 10.1097/00004424-199002000-00006. View

15.

Dello Russo C, Cappoli N, Pilunni D, Navarra P . Local Investigators Significantly Overestimate Overall Response Rates Compared to Blinded Independent Central Reviews in Phase 2 Oncology Trials. J Clin Pharmacol. 2020; 61(6):810-819. DOI: 10.1002/jcph.1790. View

16.

Yoon S, Kim K, Goo J, Kim D, Hahn S . Observer variability in RECIST-based tumour burden measurements: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2015; 53:5-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.10.014. View

17.

Tazdait M, Mezquita L, Lahmar J, Ferrara R, Bidault F, Ammari S . Patterns of responses in metastatic NSCLC during PD-1 or PDL-1 inhibitor therapy: Comparison of RECIST 1.1, irRECIST and iRECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer. 2017; 88:38-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.10.017. View

18.

Humbert O, Chardin D . Dissociated Response in Metastatic Cancer: An Atypical Pattern Brought Into the Spotlight With Immunotherapy. Front Oncol. 2020; 10:566297. PMC: 7531255. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.566297. View

19.

Tuma R . Sometimes size doesn't matter: reevaluating RECIST and tumor response rate endpoints. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006; 98(18):1272-4. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djj403. View

20.

Williams L, Carrigan A, Auffermann W, Mills M, Rich A, Elmore J . The invisible breast cancer: Experience does not protect against inattentional blindness to clinically relevant findings in radiology. Psychon Bull Rev. 2020; 28(2):503-511. PMC: 8068567. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-020-01826-4. View