ArticleCancers2024
Tumor Response Evaluation Using iRECIST: Feasibility and Reliability of Manual Versus Software-Assisted Assessments.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multicenter AI- versus expert-assisted RECIST target lesion measurements in follow-up body CT of patients with cancer.Radiology advances · 2026Article
- Early software-assisted response predicts survival in a prospective cohort of 258 newly diagnosed cGvHD patients.Bone marrow transplantation · 2026Observational
- Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Beyond Progression in Various Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Bolus-Tracked Biphasic Contrast-Enhanced CT Imaging Following Microwave Liver Ablation Improves Ablation Zone Conspicuity and Semi-automatic Segmentation Quality.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025Article
- Software-assisted structured reporting and semi-automated TNM classification for NSCLC staging in a multicenter proof of concept study.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the feasibility and reliability of manual versus software-assisted assessments of computed tomography scans according to iRECIST in patients undergoing immune-based cancer treatment.
methodsComputed tomography scans of 30 tumor patients undergoing cancer treatment were evaluated by four independent radiologists at baseline (BL) and two follow-ups (FU), resulting in a total of 360 tumor assessments (120 each at BL/FU1/FU2). After image interpretation, tumor burden and response status were either calculated manually or semi-automatically as defined by software, respectively. The reading time, calculated sum of longest diameter (SLD), and tumor response (e.g., "iStable Disease") were determined for each assessment. After complete data collection, a consensus reading among the four readers was performed to establish a reference standard for the correct response assignments. The reading times, error rates, and inter-reader agreement on SLDs were statistically compared between the manual versus software-assisted approaches.
resultsThe reading time was significantly longer for the manual versus software-assisted assessments at both follow-ups (median [interquartile range] FU1: 4.00 min [2.17 min] vs. 2.50 min [1.00 min]; FU2: 3.75 min [1.88 min] vs. 2.00 min [1.50 min]; both
conclusionsSoftware-assisted assessments may facilitate the iRECIST response evaluation of cancer patients in clinical routine by decreasing the reading time and reducing response misclassifications.
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.