BACKGROUND: Alternative response criteria have been proposed in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who are receiving vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy, including 10% tumor shrinkage as an indicator of response/outcome. However, to the authors' knowledge, intraobserver and interobserver measurement variability have not been defined in this setting. The objective of the current study was to determine intraobserver and interobserver agreement of computed tomography (CT) size and attenuation measurements to establish reproducible response indicators. METHODS: Seventy-one patients with mRCC with 179 target lesions were enrolled in phase 2 and phase 3 trials of VEGF-targeted therapies and retrospectively studied with Institutional Review Board approval. Two radiologists independently measured the long axis diameter and mean attenuation of target lesions at baseline and on follow-up CT. Concordance correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess intraobserver and interobserver agreement. RESULTS: High concordance correlation coefficients (range, 0.8602-0.9984) were observed in all types of measurements. The 95% limits of agreement for the percentage change of the sum longest diameter was -7.30% to 7.86% for intraobserver variability, indicating that 10% tumor shrinkage represents a true change in tumor size when measured by a single observer. The 95% limits of interobserver variability were -16.3% to 15.4%. On multivariate analysis, the location of the lesion was found to significantly contribute to interobserver variability (P = .048). The 95% limits of intraobserver agreement for the percentage change in CT attenuation were -18.34% to 16.7%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mRCC who are treated with VEGF inhibitors, 10% tumor shrinkage is a reproducible radiologic response indicator when baseline and follow-up studies are measured by a single radiologist. Lesion location contributes significantly to measurement variability and should be considered when selecting target lesions.
BACKGROUND: Alternative response criteria have been proposed in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who are receiving vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy, including 10% tumor shrinkage as an indicator of response/outcome. However, to the authors' knowledge, intraobserver and interobserver measurement variability have not been defined in this setting. The objective of the current study was to determine intraobserver and interobserver agreement of computed tomography (CT) size and attenuation measurements to establish reproducible response indicators. METHODS: Seventy-one patients with mRCC with 179 target lesions were enrolled in phase 2 and phase 3 trials of VEGF-targeted therapies and retrospectively studied with Institutional Review Board approval. Two radiologists independently measured the long axis diameter and mean attenuation of target lesions at baseline and on follow-up CT. Concordance correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess intraobserver and interobserver agreement. RESULTS: High concordance correlation coefficients (range, 0.8602-0.9984) were observed in all types of measurements. The 95% limits of agreement for the percentage change of the sum longest diameter was -7.30% to 7.86% for intraobserver variability, indicating that 10% tumor shrinkage represents a true change in tumor size when measured by a single observer. The 95% limits of interobserver variability were -16.3% to 15.4%. On multivariate analysis, the location of the lesion was found to significantly contribute to interobserver variability (P = .048). The 95% limits of intraobserver agreement for the percentage change in CT attenuation were -18.34% to 16.7%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mRCC who are treated with VEGF inhibitors, 10% tumor shrinkage is a reproducible radiologic response indicator when baseline and follow-up studies are measured by a single radiologist. Lesion location contributes significantly to measurement variability and should be considered when selecting target lesions.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; David M Jackman; Hiroto Hatabu; Beow Y Yeap; Leigh-Anne Cioffredi; Jeffrey T Yap; Pasi A Jänne; Bruce E Johnson; Annick D Van den Abbeele Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; Mengye Guo; David M Jackman; Pamela J DiPiro; Jeffrey T Yap; Tak K Ho; Hiroto Hatabu; Pasi A Jänne; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Bruce E Johnson Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-10-30 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Thomas E Hutson; Piotr Tomczak; M Dror Michaelson; Ronald M Bukowski; Olivier Rixe; Stéphane Oudard; Sylvie Negrier; Cezary Szczylik; Sindy T Kim; Isan Chen; Paul W Bycott; Charles M Baum; Robert A Figlin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Katherine M Krajewski; Mengye Guo; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Jeffrey Yap; Nikhil Ramaiya; Jyothi Jagannathan; Daniel Y C Heng; Michael B Atkins; David F McDermott; Fabio A B Schutz; Ivan Pedrosa; Toni K Choueiri Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Robert J Motzer; M Dror Michaelson; Jonathan Rosenberg; Ronald M Bukowski; Brendan D Curti; Daniel J George; Gary R Hudes; Bruce G Redman; Kim A Margolin; George Wilding Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-09-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Katherine M Krajewski; Yoko Franchetti; Mizuki Nishino; André P Fay; Nikhil Ramaiya; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Toni K Choueiri Journal: Oncologist Date: 2014-04-22
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Michael P Manos; Nancy Bailey; Elizabeth I Buchbinder; Patrick A Ott; Nikhil H Ramaiya; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Katherine M Krajewski; Marta Braschi-Amirfarzan; Pamela J DiPiro; Jyothi P Jagannathan; Atul B Shinagare Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Sung Han Kim; Weon Seo Park; Sun Ho Kim; Ho Kyung Seo; Jae Young Joung; Kang Hyun Lee; Jinsoo Chung Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jimi Huh; Jisuk Park; Kyung Won Kim; Hyoung Jung Kim; Jong Seok Lee; Jong Hwa Lee; Yoong Ki Jeong; Atul B Shinagare; Nikhil H Ramaiya Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 3.500