RECIST 1.1 assessments variability: a systematic pictorial review of blinded double reads.

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Antoine Iannessi, Hubert Beaumont, Christine Ojango, Anne-Sophie Bertrand, Yan Liu
{"title":"RECIST 1.1 assessments variability: a systematic pictorial review of blinded double reads.","authors":"Antoine Iannessi, Hubert Beaumont, Christine Ojango, Anne-Sophie Bertrand, Yan Liu","doi":"10.1186/s13244-024-01774-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":13639,"journal":{"name":"Insights into Imaging","volume":"15 1","pages":"199"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11306910/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Insights into Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-024-01774-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

RECIST 1.1 评估的可变性:盲法双读的系统性图解回顾。
肿瘤放射学评估本身就存在读者差异,因此有必要采取措施提高一致性和准确性。RECIST 1.1 标准通过对评估进行标准化,旨在建立一个由组织学或患者存活率证实的公认 "真理",从而在减少这种变异性方面发挥了至关重要的作用。临床试验利用盲法独立集中评审(BICR)技术来管理变异性,采用双读和评审员来有效解决观察者之间的不一致。剖析反应评估变异性的根本原因至关重要,尤其要关注影响 RECIST 评估的因素。我们为放射科医生提出了积极的措施,以解决放射科医生的专业知识、图像质量和上下文信息的可获取性等对判读和评估精确度有重大影响的变异来源。遵守标准化和 RECIST 指南对于减少变异性和确保不同研究结果的一致性至关重要。包括病灶选择、新病灶出现和确认偏差在内的变异因素会对评估的准确性和解释产生深远影响,这就强调了识别和解决这些因素的重要性。深入研究变异的原因有助于提高肿瘤学反应评估的准确性和一致性,强调标准化评估方案的作用,并降低导致变异的风险因素。获取背景信息至关重要。关键相关性声明:通过了解诊断变异的原因,我们可以提高肿瘤学反应评估的准确性和一致性,最终改善患者护理和临床结果。关键要点:基线病灶的选择和新病灶的检测是导致诊断不一致的主要原因。图像解读受背景信息的影响,缺乏背景信息会导致诊断不确定性。放射医师必须接受有关 RECIST 标准的培训,以减少误差和变异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Insights into Imaging
Insights into Imaging Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
182
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Insights into Imaging (I³) is a peer-reviewed open access journal published under the brand SpringerOpen. All content published in the journal is freely available online to anyone, anywhere! I³ continuously updates scientific knowledge and progress in best-practice standards in radiology through the publication of original articles and state-of-the-art reviews and opinions, along with recommendations and statements from the leading radiological societies in Europe. Founded by the European Society of Radiology (ESR), I³ creates a platform for educational material, guidelines and recommendations, and a forum for topics of controversy. A balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes I³ an indispensable source for current information in this field. I³ is owned by the ESR, however authors retain copyright to their article according to the Creative Commons Attribution License (see Copyright and License Agreement). All articles can be read, redistributed and reused for free, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly. The open access fees (article-processing charges) for this journal are kindly sponsored by ESR for all Members. The journal went open access in 2012, which means that all articles published since then are freely available online.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信