| Autor: |
Allen, Brian C., Florez, Edward, Sirous, Reza, Lirette, Seth T., Griswold, Michael, Remer, Erick M., Wang, Zhen J., Bieszczad, Jacob E., Cox, Kelly L., Goenka, Ajit H., Howard-Claudio, Candace M., Kang, Hyunseon C., Nandwana, Sadhna B., Sanyal, Rupan, Shinagare, Atul B., Henegan, J. Clark, Storrs, Judd, Davenport, Matthew S., Ganeshan, Balaji, Vasanji, Amit |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics; 8/30/2017, p1-16, 16p |
| Abstrakt: |
Purpose To compare the effectiveness of metastatic tumor response evaluation with computed tomography using computer-assisted versus manual methods. Materials and Methods In this institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective study, 11 readers from 10 different institutions independently categorized tumor response according to three different therapeutic response criteria by using paired baseline and initial post-therapy computed tomography studies from 20 randomly selected patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with sunitinib as part of a completed phase III multiinstitutional study. Images were evaluated with a manual tumor response evaluation method (standard of care) and with computer-assisted response evaluation (CARE) that included stepwise guidance, interactive error identification and correction methods, automated tumor metric extraction, calculations, response categorization, and data and image archiving. A crossover design, patient randomization, and 2-week washout period were used to reduce recall bias. Comparative effectiveness metrics included error rate and mean patient evaluation time. Results The standard-of-care method, on average, was associated with one or more errors in 30.5% (6.1 of 20) of patients, whereas CARE had a 0.0% (0.0 of 20) error rate (P < .001). The most common errors were related to data transfer and arithmetic calculation. In patients with errors, the median number of error types was 1 (range, 1 to 3). Mean patient evaluation time with CARE was twice as fast as the standard-of-care method (6.4 minutes v 13.1 minutes; P < .001). Conclusion CARE reduced errors and time of evaluation, which indicated better overall effectiveness than manual tumor response evaluation methods that are the current standard of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
