Suppr超能文献

RECIST 1.1与病灶选择:如何处理基线时的模糊情况?

RECIST 1.1 and lesion selection: How to deal with ambiguity at baseline?

作者信息

Iannessi Antoine, Beaumont Hubert, Liu Yan, Bertrand Anne-Sophie

机构信息

Median Technologies, 06560, Valbonne, France.

Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grâce, Monaco, 98000, Monaco.

出版信息

Insights Imaging. 2021 Mar 18;12(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s13244-021-00976-w.

Abstract

Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) is still the predominant criteria base for assessing tumor burden in oncology clinical trials. Despite several improvements that followed its first publication, RECIST continues to allow readers a lot of freedom in their evaluations. Notably in the selection of tumors at baseline. This subjectivity is the source of many suboptimal evaluations. When starting a baseline analysis, radiologists cannot always identify tumor malignancy with any certainty. Also, with RECIST, some findings can be deemed equivocal by radiologists with no confirmatory ground truth to rely on. In the specific case of Blinded Independent Central Review clinical trials with double reads using RECIST, the selection of equivocal tumors can have two major consequences: inter-reader variability and modified sensitivity of the therapeutic response. Apart from the main causes leading to the selection of an equivocal lesion, due to the uncertainty of the radiological characteristics or due to the censoring of on-site evaluations, several other situations can be described more precisely. These latter involve cases where an equivocal is selected as target or non-target lesions, the management of equivocal lymph nodes and the case of few target lesions. In all cases, awareness of the impact of selecting a non-malignant lesion will lead radiologists to make selections in the most rational way. Also, in clinical trials where the primary endpoint differs between phase 2 (response-related) and phase 3 (progression-related) trials, our impact analysis will help them to devise strategies for the management of equivocal lesions.

摘要

实体瘤疗效评价标准(RECIST)仍是肿瘤学临床试验中评估肿瘤负荷的主要标准依据。尽管自首次发布以来有了多项改进,但RECIST在评估方面仍让读者有很大的自由裁量权。特别是在基线肿瘤的选择上。这种主观性是许多次优评估的根源。在开始基线分析时,放射科医生并非总能确定肿瘤的恶性程度。此外,使用RECIST时,一些发现可能被放射科医生视为模棱两可,且没有确凿的真实情况可供参考。在使用RECIST进行双读的盲法独立中央审查临床试验的特定情况下,模棱两可肿瘤的选择可能会产生两个主要后果:读者间的变异性和治疗反应敏感性的改变。除了导致选择模棱两可病变的主要原因,即由于放射学特征的不确定性或现场评估的审查,还可以更精确地描述其他几种情况。后者包括将模棱两可的病变选为靶病变或非靶病变的情况、模棱两可淋巴结的处理以及靶病变较少的情况。在所有情况下,意识到选择非恶性病变的影响将促使放射科医生以最合理的方式进行选择。此外,在2期(与反应相关)和3期(与进展相关)试验的主要终点不同的临床试验中,我们的影响分析将帮助他们制定处理模棱两可病变的策略。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bd5d/7973344/c66eb95e1286/13244_2021_976_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验