ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2026
Setting the standard: empirical benchmarks for case-level site-central discordance in radiographic endpoints in oncology clinical trials.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Progression-free survival and objective response rate assessed per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), are based on serial radiographic assessments of tumor burden. We quantified case-level discordance between investigator and blinded independent central review (BICR)-determined progressive disease (PD) and objective response (OR) to provide benchmarks that can help clinical study teams judge whether observed discordance rates are expected or a data quality concern. Methods: We performed a pooled analysis of 39 phase 2 and 3 solid-tumor trials of pembrolizumab-based regimens in which radiographic images were reviewed by investigators and BICR and RECIST v1.1 was used to assess response. Case-level discordance of PD, confirmed OR, and unconfirmed OR were calculated from 2×2 tables. Results: Case-level discordance was 17.7% (95% CI 17.2-18.2) for PD (n = 20,908), 12.2% (11.8-12.7) for confirmed OR (n = 21,520), and 14.7% (14.1-15.3) for unconfirmed OR (n = 15,209). Discordance varied by cancer type, ranging from 11.8% (melanoma) to 22.8% (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) for PD, from 5.4% (HCC) to 20.0% (cervical cancer) for confirmed OR, and from 6.3% (HCC) to 19.7% (cervical cancer) for unconfirmed OR. Trials with real-time verification of progression showed lower PD discordance than those without (17.3% [95% CI 16.7-17.8] vs 20.2% [18.8-21.7]). PD discordance was similar in double-blind and open-label trials (17.6% [95% CI 16.9-18.3] vs 17.8% [17.0-18.6]). Confirmed OR discordance was more common in double-blind trials (13.3% [12.7-13.9] vs 10.9% [10.3-11.6]). Conclusion: This analysis of trials of pembrolizumab-based regimens addresses a critical gap in oncology trial methodology by establishing empirical benchmarks for site-central discordance of RECIST v1.1 response assessment, enabling study teams to distinguish expected variability from potential data quality signals. While the underlying sources of discordance characterized here are not specific to immunotherapy, the reported magnitude of discordance should be applied cautiously to trials of non-immunotherapy agents.
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.