ArticleActa radiologica open2015
Evaluation of a cloud-based local-read paradigm for imaging evaluations in oncology clinical trials for lung cancer.
Article in Acta radiologica open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of tumor volume and density as a measure of the response of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma to sorafenib: Application of automated measurements on computed tomography scans.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the 95% limits of agreement of the volumes of 5-year clinically stable solid nodules for the development of a follow-up system for indeterminate solid nodules in CT lung cancer screening.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
- Automatic digital quantification of bone marrow myeloma volume in appendicular skeletons - clinical implications and prognostic significance.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough tumor response evaluated with radiological imaging is frequently used as a primary endpoint in clinical trials, it is difficult to obtain precise results because of inter- and intra-observer differences. PURPOSE: To evaluate usefulness of a cloud-based local-read paradigm implementing software solutions that standardize imaging evaluations among international investigator sites for clinical trials of lung cancer. MATERIAL AND
methodsTwo studies were performed: KUMO I and KUMO I Extension. KUMO I was a pilot study aiming at demonstrating the feasibility of cloud implementation and identifying issues regarding variability of evaluations among sites. Chest CT scans at three time-points from baseline to progression, from 10 patients with lung cancer who were treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, were evaluated independently by two oncologists (Japan) and one radiologist (France), through a cloud-based software solution. The KUMO I Extension was performed based on the results of KUMO I.
resultsKUMO I showed discordance rates of 40% for target lesion selection, 70% for overall response at the first time-point, and 60% for overall response at the second time-point. Since the main reason for the discordance was differences in the selection of target lesions, KUMO I Extension added a cloud-based quality control service to achieve a consensus on the selection of target lesions, resulting in an improved rate of agreement of response evaluations.
conclusionThe study shows the feasibility of imaging evaluations at investigator sites, based on cloud services for clinical studies involving multiple international sites. This system offers a step forward in standardizing evaluations of images among widely dispersed sites.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.