Observer variability in RECIST-based tumour burden measurements: A meta-analysis

European Journal of Cancer

Volumn 53, Issue , 2016, Pages 5-15

  Yoon, Soon Ho ^a   Kim, Kyung Won ^b   Goo, Jin Mo ^a,c   Kim, Dong Wan ^a   Hahn, Seokyung ^a  

^a Seoul National University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b University of Ulsan College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^c Seoul National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Measurement; Meta analysis; Observer variation; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours; Tumour burden

Indexed keywords

CANCER SIZE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INTEROBSERVER VARIABILITY; LIMIT OF AGREEMENT; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; META ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM; OBSERVER VARIABILITY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RECIST GUIDELINE; RELATIVE MEASUREMENT DIFFERENCE; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TUMOR VOLUME; PATHOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; RESPONSE EVALUATION CRITERIA IN SOLID TUMORS;

HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; OBSERVER VARIATION; RESPONSE EVALUATION CRITERIA IN SOLID TUMORS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84949510082     PISSN: 09598049     EISSN: 18790852     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.10.014     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. P. Therasse, S.G. Arbuck, E.A. Eisenhauer, J. Wanders, R.S. Kaplan, L. Rubinstein, and et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid Tumors J Natl Cancer Inst 92 3 2000 205 216
2. E.A. Eisenhauer, P. Therasse, J. Bogaerts, L.H. Schwartz, D. Sargent, R. Ford, and et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1) Eur J Cancer 45 2 2009 228 247
3. R.L. Korn, and J.J. Crowley Overview: progression-free survival as an endpoint in clinical trials with solid tumors Clin Cancer Res 19 10 2013 2607 2612
4. C. Suzuki, M.R. Torkzad, H. Jacobsson, G. Astrom, A. Sundin, T. Hatschek, and et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the response evaluation of cancer therapy according to RECIST and WHO-criteria Acta Oncol 49 4 2010 509 514
5. O. Amit, F. Mannino, A.M. Stone, W. Bushnell, J. Denne, J. Helterbrand, and et al. Blinded independent central review of progression in cancer clinical trials: results from a meta-analysis Eur J Cancer 47 12 2011 1772 1778
6. C. Huanyu, H. Kun, T. Shenghui, R. Justice, P. Keegan, R. Pazdur, and et al. Evaluation of blinded independent central review of tumor progression in oncology clinical trials: a meta-analysis Ther Innov Regul Sci 47 2 2013 167 174
7. P. Thiesse, L. Ollivier, D. Di Stefano-Louineau, S. Negrier, J. Savary, K. Pignard, and et al. Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for interobserver variability. Groupe Francais d'Immunotherapie of the Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer J Clin Oncol 15 12 1997 3507 3514
8. J.J. Erasmus, G.W. Gladish, L. Broemeling, B.S. Sabloff, M.T. Truong, R.S. Herbst, and et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response J Clin Oncol 21 13 2003 2574 2582
9. T. Shao, L.S. Wang, A.J. Templeton, R. Jang, F.W. Vera-Badillo, M.G. McNamara, and et al. Use and misuse of waterfall plots J Natl Cancer Inst 106 12 2014
10. E.L. Korn, L.E. Dodd, and B. Freidlin Measurement error in the timing of events: effect on survival analyses in randomized clinical trials Clin Trials 7 6 2010 626 633
11. S. Hong, N. Schmitt, A. Stone, and J. Denne Attenuation of treatment effect due to measurement variability in assessment of progression-free survival Pharm Stat 11 5 2012 394 402
12. D.C. Sullivan, L.H. Schwartz, and B. Zhao The imaging viewpoint: how imaging affects determination of progression-free survival Clin Cancer Res 19 10 2013 2621 2628
13. M.L. Maitland, L.H. Schwartz, and M.J. Ratain Time to tumor growth: a model end point and new metric system for oncology clinical trials J Clin Oncol 31 17 2013 2070 2072
14. J.M. Bland, and D.G. Altman Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement Lancet 1 8476 1986 307 310
15. M. Fabel, H. von Tengg-Kobligk, F.L. Giesel, L. Bornemann, V. Dicken, A. Kopp-Schneider, and et al. Semi-automated volumetric analysis of lymph node metastases in patients with malignant melanoma stage III/IV - a feasibility study Eur Radiol 18 6 2008 1114 1122
16. B. Zhao, L.P. James, C.S. Moskowitz, P. Guo, M.S. Ginsberg, R.A. Lefkowitz, and et al. Evaluating variability in tumor measurements from same-day repeat CT scans of patients with non-small cell lung cancer Radiology 252 1 2009 263 272
17. P.F. Whiting, A.W. Rutjes, M.E. Westwood, S. Mallett, J.J. Deeks, J.B. Reitsma, and et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies Ann Intern Med 155 8 2011 529 536
18. P.R. Williamson, G.A. Lancaster, J.V. Craig, and R.L. Smyth Meta-analysis of method comparison studies Stat Med 21 14 2002 2013 2025
19. J.P. Higgins, S.G. Thompson, J.J. Deeks, and D.G. Altman Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses BMJ 327 7414 2003 557 560
20. B. Buerke, M. Puesken, S. Muter, M. Weckesser, J. Gerss, W. Heindel, and et al. Measurement accuracy and reproducibility of semiautomated metric and volumetric lymph node analysis in MDCT AJR Am J Roentgenol 195 4 2010 979 985
21. J. Kalkmann, S.C. Ladd, A. de Greiff, M. Forsting, and J. Stattaus Suitability of semi-automated tumor response assessment of liver metastases using a dedicated software package Rofo 182 7 2010 581 588
22. M. Nishino, M. Guo, D.M. Jackman, P.J. DiPiro, J.T. Yap, T.K. Ho, and et al. CT tumor volume measurement in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: performance characteristics of an emerging clinical tool Acad Radiol 18 1 2011 54 62
23. C.S. van Kessel, M.S. van Leeuwen, P.O. Witteveen, T.C. Kwee, H.M. Verkooijen, and R. van Hillegersberg Semi-automatic software increases CT measurement accuracy but not response classification of colorectal liver metastases after chemotherapy Eur J Radiol 81 10 2012 2543 2549
24. J. Dinkel, O. Khalilzadeh, C. Hintze, M. Fabel, M. Puderbach, M. Eichinger, and et al. Inter-observer reproducibility of semi-automatic tumor diameter measurement and volumetric analysis in patients with lung cancer Lung Cancer 82 1 2013 76 82
25. B. Zhao, Y. Tan, D.J. Bell, S.E. Marley, P. Guo, H. Mann, and et al. Exploring intra- and inter-reader variability in uni-dimensional, bi-dimensional, and volumetric measurements of solid tumors on CT scans reconstructed at different slice intervals Eur J Radiol 82 6 2013 959 968
26. K.M. Krajewski, M. Nishino, Y. Franchetti, N.H. Ramaiya, A.D. Van den Abbeele, and T.K. Choueiri Intraobserver and interobserver variability in computed tomography size and attenuation measurements in patients with renal cell carcinoma receiving antiangiogenic therapy: implications for alternative response criteria Cancer 120 5 2014 711 721
27. M. Fabel, H. Bolte, H. von Tengg-Kobligk, L. Bornemann, V. Dicken, S. Delorme, and et al. Semi-automated volumetric analysis of lymph node metastases during follow-up-initial results Eur Radiol 21 4 2011 683 692
28. A.M. Wulff, M. Fabel, S. Freitag-Wolf, M. Tepper, H.M. Knabe, J.P. Schafer, and et al. Volumetric response classification in metastatic solid tumors on MSCT: initial results in a whole-body setting Eur J Radiol 82 10 2013 e567 e573
29. L.H. Schwartz, M. Mazumdar, W. Brown, A. Smith, and D.M. Panicek Variability in response assessment in solid tumors: effect of number of lesions chosen for measurement Clin Cancer Res 9 12 2003 4318 4323
30. M. Mazumdar, A. Smith, P.P. Debroy, and L.H. Schwartz A theoretical approach to choosing the minimum number of multiple tumors required for assessing treatment response J Clin Epidemiol 58 2 2005 150 153
31. C.S. Moskowitz, X. Jia, L.H. Schwartz, and M. Gonen A simulation study to evaluate the impact of the number of lesions measured on response assessment Eur J Cancer 45 2 2009 300 310
32. T.T. Zacharia, S. Saini, E.F. Halpern, and J.E. Sumner CT of colon cancer metastases to the liver using modified RECIST criteria: determining the ideal number of target lesions to measure Am J Roentgenol 186 4 2006 1067 1070
33. H.S. Kim, J.H. Kim, and I. Yang Tumor response assessment by measuring the single largest lesion per organ in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer Lung Cancer 85 3 2014 385 389
34. S.L. Hillman, M.W. An, M.J. O'Connell, R.M. Goldberg, P. Schaefer, J.C. Buckner, and et al. 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 investigation J Clin Oncol 27 19 2009 3205 3210
35. M.H.S.E. Darkeh, C. Suzuki, and M.R. Torkzad 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 82 980 2009 681 686
36. K.D. Hopper, C.J. Kasales, M.A. VanSlyke, T.A. Schwartz, T.R. TenHave, and J.A. Jozefiak Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements Am J Roentgenol 167 1996 851 854
37. D. Muenzel, H.P. Engels, M. Bruegel, V. Kehl, E.J. Rummeny, and S. Metz Intra- and inter-observer variability in measurement of target lesions: implication on response evaluation according to RECIST 1.1 Radiol Oncol 46 1 2012 8 18
38. B.S. Zhao, S.M. Lee, H.J. Lee, Y.Q. Tan, J. Qi, T. Persigehl, and et al. Variability in assessing treatment response: metastatic colorectal cancer as a paradigm Clin Cancer Res 20 13 2014 3560 3568
39. S. Keil, A. Barabasch, T. Dirrichs, P. Bruners, N.L. Hansen, H.B. Bieling, and et al. Target lesion selection: an important factor causing variability of response classification in the response evaluation criteria for solid tumors 1.1 Invest Radiol 49 8 2014 509 517
40. A. McErlean, D.M. Panicek, E.C. Zabor, C.S. Moskowitz, R. Bitar, R.J. Motzer, and et al. Intra- and interobserver variability in CT measurements in oncology Radiology 269 2 2013 451 459
41. G.R. Oxnard, B.S. Zhao, C.S. Sima, M.S. Ginsberg, L.P. James, R.A. Lefkowitz, and et al. Variability of lung tumor measurements on repeat computed tomography scans taken within 15 minutes J Clin Oncol 29 23 2011 3114 3119
42. H.A. Jacene, S. Leboulleux, S. Baba, D. Chatzifotiadis, B. Goudarzi, O. Teytelbaum, and et al. Assessment of interobserver reproducibility in quantitative 18F-FDG PET and CT measurements of tumor response to therapy J Nucl Med 50 11 2009 1760 1769
43. J.S. Gill, D.G. Beevers, A.V. Zezulka, and P. Davies Relation between initial blood-pressure and its fall with treatment Lancet 1 8428 1985 567 569