ArticleLung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2021
Intra- and inter-reader agreement of iRECIST and RECIST 1.1 criteria for the assessment of tumor response in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy for lung cancer.
Article in Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response evaluations in non-small cell lung cancer patients undergoing immunotherapy: a comparative analysis of RECIST 1.1, iRECIST, and imRECIST criteria.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Article
- Applications of CT-based radiomics for the prediction of immune checkpoint markers and immunotherapeutic outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the inter- and intra-reader agreement of immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (iRECIST) and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) in patients with lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 85 patients with lung cancer treated with PD-1 blockade. Four radiologists evaluated computed topography (CT) scans before and after initiation of immunotherapy using iRECIST and RECIST 1.1. Weighted kappa (k) with equal weights was used to assess the intra-reader agreement between 2 repeated reads on overall response at all time points, best overall response, and the response at the time point of progression, as well as the intra-reader agreement between iRECIST and RECIST. The inter-reader agreement was calculated using Light's kappa.
resultsIntra-reader agreement for overall response at all time points, best overall response, and time point of progression was substantial to almost perfect for both iRECIST and RECIST 1.1 (k = 0.651-0.983). Inter-reader agreement was substantial for iRECIST (κ = 0.657-0.742) while RECIST 1.1 was moderate to substantial (κ = 0.587-0.686). The level of inter-reader agreement was not higher on repeat read for iRECIST (κ = 0.677-0.709 and κ = 0.657-0.742 for first and second read, respectively) as well as for RECIST 1.1 (κ = 0.587-0.659 and κ = 0.633-0.686 for first and second read, respectively). Almost perfect agreement was observed between RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST at first (κ = 0.813-0.923) and second read (κ = 0.841-0.912).
conclusionThe inter- and intra-reader agreement of iRECIST is high and similar to RECIST 1.1 in patients with lung cancer treated with immunotherapy.
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.