Qualitative radiology assessment of tumor response: does it measure up?

Ronald H. Gottlieb, Alan Litwin, Bhavna Gupta, John Taylor, Cheryl Raczyk, Terry Mashtare, Gregory Wilding, Marwan Fakih

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

Our purpose was to assess whether a simpler qualitative evaluation of tumor response by computed tomography is as reproducible and predictive of clinical outcome as the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and World Health Organization (WHO) methods. This study was a two-reader retrospective evaluation in which qualitative assessment resulted in agreement in 21 of 23 patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (91.3%, kappa=0.78; 95% CI, 0.51-1.00). Hepatic metastases were classified as increased, decreased, or unchanged, compared with agreement in 20 of 23 patients (87.0%) for RECIST (kappa=0.62; 95% CI, 0.23-1.00) and WHO (kappa=0.67; 95% CI, 0.34-1.00) methods. Patients were placed into partial response, stable disease, and disease progression categories. Time to progression of disease was better predicted qualitatively than by RECIST or WHO. Our pilot data suggest that our qualitative scoring system is more reproducible and predictive of patient clinical outcome than the RECIST and WHO methods.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)136-140
Number of pages5
JournalClinical Imaging
Volume32
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2008

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Qualitative radiology assessment of tumor response: does it measure up?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this