Tumor response assessment: comparison between unstructured free text reporting in routine clinical workflow and computer-aided evaluation based on RECIST 1.1 criteria
| Autor: | Julia Hoischen, Carolin Gramsch, Haemi P. Schemuth, Lale Umutlu, Juliane Goebel, Kai Nassenstein, Andreas-Claudius Hoffmann |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2017 |
| Předmět: |
Adult
Male Cancer Research medicine.medical_specialty Adolescent Medizin Computed tomography Documentation Tumor response 030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging Young Adult 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Neoplasms medicine Text messaging Humans Medical physics Diagnosis Computer-Assisted Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Aged Retrospective Studies Aged 80 and over medicine.diagnostic_test business.industry General Medicine Gold standard (test) Middle Aged medicine.disease Tumor Burden Clinical trial Health Records Personal Oncology 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Computer-aided Female Forms and Records Control Radiology Tomography X-Ray Computed business Progressive disease Kappa |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. 143:2527-2533 |
| ISSN: | 1432-1335 0171-5216 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s00432-017-2488-1 |
| Popis: | Standardized computer-aided tumor response assessment is common in clinical trials. In contrast, unstructured free text reporting (UFTR) is common in daily routine. Therefore, this study aimed to discern and quantify differences between UFTR and computer-aided standardized tumor response evaluation based on RECIST 1.1 criteria (RECIST), serving as gold standard, in clinical workflow. One-hundred consecutive patients with cancer eligible for RECIST 1.1 evaluation, who received five follow-up CTs of the trunk, were retrospectively included. All UFTRs were assigned to RECIST response categories [complete response, partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD)]. All CTs were re-evaluated using dedicated software (mint lesion™) applying RECIST 1.1. The accordance in tumor response ratings was analyzed using Cohen’s kappa. At the first follow-up, 47 cases were rated differently with an SD underrepresentation and a PR and PD overrepresentation in UFTR. In the subsequent follow-ups, categorical differences were seen in 38, 44, 37, and 44%. Accordance between UFTR and RECIST was fair to moderate (Cohen’s kappa: 0.356, 0.477, 0.390, 0.475, 0.376; always p |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink