ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2022
iRECIST-based versus non-standardized free text reporting of CT scans for monitoring metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective comparison.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTherapy decision for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is highly dependent on disease monitoring based on radiological reports. The purpose of the study was to compare non-standardized, common practice free text reporting (FTR) on disease response with reporting based on response evaluation criteria in solid tumors modified for immune-based therapeutics (iRECIST).
methodsFifty patients with advanced mRCC were included in the retrospective, single-center study. CT scans had been evaluated and FTR prepared in accordance with center's routine practice. For study purposes, reports were re-evaluated using a dedicated computer program that applied iRECIST. Patients were followed up over a period of 22.8 ± 7.9 months in intervals of 2.7 ± 1.8 months. Weighted kappa statistics was run to assess strength of agreement. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors for different rating.
resultsAgreement between FTR and iRECIST-based reporting was moderate (kappa 0.38 [95% CI 0.2-0.6] to 0.70 [95% CI 0.5-0.9]). Tumor response or progression according to FTR were not confirmed with iRECIST in 19 (38%) or 11 (22%) patients, respectively, in at least one follow-up examination. With FTR, new lesions were frequently not recognized if they were already identified in the recent prior follow-up examination (odds ratio for too favorable rating of disease response compared to iRECIST: 5.4 [95% CI 2.9-10.1].
conclusionsModerate agreement between disease response according to FTR or iRECIST in patients with mRCC suggests the need of standardized quantitative radiological assessment in daily clinical practice.
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.