ArticleCancers2021
Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) in New Therapeutic Lung Cancer Trials.
Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tumor metrics imaging core labs: primer for radiologists.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Using Dose-Escalation and -Expansion Cohort Study as Pivotal Trial for Targeted Anticancer Drug Approval.JCO precision oncology · 2025Review
- A call for objectivity: Radiologists' proposed wishlist for response evaluation in solid tumors (RECIST 1.1).Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024Review
- RECIST 1.1 assessments variability: a systematic pictorial review of blinded double reads.Insights into imaging · 2024Review
- Uncover This Tech Term: Independent Central Image Reading.Korean journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Circulating immune response proteins predict the outcome following disease progression of osimertinib treated epidermal growth factor receptor-positive non-small cell lung cancer patients.Translational lung cancer research · 2023Article
- Can we predict discordant RECIST 1.1 evaluations in double read clinical trials?Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Breaking down the RECIST 1.1 double read variability in lung trials: What do baseline assessments tell us?Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Advances in Lung Cancer Imaging and Therapy.Cancers · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDouble reads in blinded independent central reviews (BICRs) are recommended to control the quality of trials but they are prone to discordances. We analyzed inter-reader discordances in a pool of lung cancer trials using RECIST 1.1.
methodsWe analyzed six lung cancer BICR trials that included 1833 patients (10,684 time points) involving 17 radiologists. We analyzed the rate of discrepancy of each trial at the time-point and patient levels as well as testing inter-trial differences. The analysis of adjudication made it possible to compute the readers' endorsement rates, the root causes of adjudications, and the proportions of "errors" versus "medically justifiable differences".
resultsThe trials had significantly different discrepancy rates both at the time-point (average = 34.3%) and patient (average = 59.2%) levels. When considering only discrepancies for progressive disease, homogeneous discrepancy rates were found with an average of 32.9%, while readers' endorsement rates ranged between 27.7% and 77.8%. Major causes of adjudication were different per trial, with medically justifiable differences being the most common, triggering 74.2% of total adjudications.
conclusionsWe provide baseline performances for monitoring reader performance in trials with double reads. Intelligent reading system implementation along with appropriate reader training and monitoring are solutions that could mitigate a large portion of the commonly encountered reading errors.
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.