You are here
Assessing solid tumor response with and without RECIST.
Background: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) has become widely accepted as gold standard for response evaluation in clinical trials. It remains underutilized in routine clinical practice. We compared tumor response assessment made with and without RECIST. Methods: This study included patients with solid tumors who underwent imaging from January 2013 to December 2014 at a single academic center. Tumor response was assessed by a radiologist using RECIST and by an oncologist (Onc) and resident (Res) without using RECIST (standard report). Tumor response was classified as progressive disease (PD), stable disease (SD), partial response (PR) and complete response (CR). Agreement in assessment between RECIST and standard report was determined by percent agreement and Kappa statistic. Results: 292 imaging studies were included. Concordance between RECIST and Onc-interpreted standard report is presented in Table 1. Overall agreement between RECIST and Onc-interpreted standard report was 56% (95% CI: 46-65%) and Kappa was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.19-0.44). Similar results were seen between RECIST and Res-interpreted standard report (Table 1). Overall agreement between RECIST and Res-interpreted report was 54% (95% CI: 44%-63%) and Kappa was 0.26 (95% CI: 0.13-0.40). Conclusions: Our study found variability in tumor response assessment between clinicians and radiologists. RECIST-classified PD was often interpreted as SD and vice versa, a distinction that affect treatment decisions. Our study highlights the need to standardize tumor response assessment.
|Oncologist Assessment||Resident Assessment||Total|