ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2017
Tumor response assessment: comparison between unstructured free text reporting in routine clinical workflow and computer-aided evaluation based on RECIST 1.1 criteria.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multicenter AI- versus expert-assisted RECIST target lesion measurements in follow-up body CT of patients with cancer.Radiology advances · 2026Article
- Association of Free Thyroxine With Progression-Free Survival in Intermediate and High-Risk Differentiated Thyroid Cancer.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Observational
- Review
- Tumor Response Evaluation Using iRECIST: Feasibility and Reliability of Manual Versus Software-Assisted Assessments.Cancers · 2024Article
- A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- Do Imaging Core Laboratories Better Predict Progression Over Clinical Interpretations?Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2023Article
- Discrepant Assessments of Progressive Disease in Clinical Trials between Routine Clinical Reads and Formal RECIST 1.1 Interpretations.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2023Article
- Metabolic patterns on [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- iRECIST-based versus non-standardized free text reporting of CT scans for monitoring metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective comparison.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2022Article
- Differential role of residual metabolic tumor volume in inoperable stage III NSCLC after chemoradiotherapy ± immune checkpoint inhibition.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- The utility of low-iodine diet in preparation for thyroid cancer therapy with radioactive iodine-A cohort study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- A reporting and analysis framework for structured evaluation of COVID-19 clinical and imaging data.NPJ digital medicine · 2021Article
- The value of DWI in predicting the response to synchronous radiochemotherapy for advanced cervical carcinoma: comparison among three mathematical models.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2020Observational
- The effect of lithium on the progression-free and overall survival in patients with metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer undergoing radioactive iodine therapy.Clinical endocrinology · 2018Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeStandardized 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.
methodsOne-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.
resultsAt 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 < 0.001). Differences were mainly caused by the rating of even small tumor burden changes as PD or PR in UFTR or by comparison to the most recent prior CT scan in UFTR instead of comparison to nadir or baseline.
conclusionsSignificant differences in tumor response ratings were detected comparing UFTR and computer-aided standardized evaluation based on RECIST 1.1. Thus, standardized reporting should be implemented in daily routine workflow.
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.