OBJECTIVES: To assess the inter-operator concordance and the potential sources of discordance in defining response to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: All patients who received sorafenib between September 2008 and February 2015 were scrutinised for this retrospective study. Images were evaluated separately by three radiologists with different expertise in liver imaging (operator 1, >10 years; operator 2, 5 years; operator 3, no specific training in liver imaging), according to: response evaluation radiological criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) 1.1, modified RECIST (mRECIST) and response evaluation criteria in cancer of the liver (RECICL). RESULTS: The overall response concordance between the more expert operators was good, irrespective of the criteria (RECIST 1.1, ĸ = 0.840; mRECIST, ĸ = 0.871; RECICL, ĸ = 0.819). Concordance between the less expert operator and the other colleagues was lower. The most evident discordance was in target lesion response assessment, with expert operators disagreeing mostly on lesion selection and less expert operators on lesion measurement. As a clinical correlate, overall survival was more tightly related with "progressive disease" as assessed by the expert compared to the same assessment performed by operator 3. CONCLUSIONS: Decision on whether a patient is a responder or progressor under sorafenib may vary among different operators, especially in case of a non-specifically trained radiologist. Regardless of the adopted criteria, patients should be evaluated by experienced radiologists to minimise variability in this critical instance. KEY POINTS: • Inter-operator variability in the assessment of response to sorafenib is poorly known. • The concordance between operators with expertise in liver imaging was good. • Target lesions selection was the main source of discordance between expert operators. • Concordance with non-specifically trained operator was lower, independently from the response criteria. • The non-specifically trained operator was mainly discordant in measurements of target lesions.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the inter-operator concordance and the potential sources of discordance in defining response to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: All patients who received sorafenib between September 2008 and February 2015 were scrutinised for this retrospective study. Images were evaluated separately by three radiologists with different expertise in liver imaging (operator 1, >10 years; operator 2, 5 years; operator 3, no specific training in liver imaging), according to: response evaluation radiological criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) 1.1, modified RECIST (mRECIST) and response evaluation criteria in cancer of the liver (RECICL). RESULTS: The overall response concordance between the more expert operators was good, irrespective of the criteria (RECIST 1.1, ĸ = 0.840; mRECIST, ĸ = 0.871; RECICL, ĸ = 0.819). Concordance between the less expert operator and the other colleagues was lower. The most evident discordance was in target lesion response assessment, with expert operators disagreeing mostly on lesion selection and less expert operators on lesion measurement. As a clinical correlate, overall survival was more tightly related with "progressive disease" as assessed by the expert compared to the same assessment performed by operator 3. CONCLUSIONS: Decision on whether a patient is a responder or progressor under sorafenib may vary among different operators, especially in case of a non-specifically trained radiologist. Regardless of the adopted criteria, patients should be evaluated by experienced radiologists to minimise variability in this critical instance. KEY POINTS: • Inter-operator variability in the assessment of response to sorafenib is poorly known. • The concordance between operators with expertise in liver imaging was good. • Target lesions selection was the main source of discordance between expert operators. • Concordance with non-specifically trained operator was lower, independently from the response criteria. • The non-specifically trained operator was mainly discordant in measurements of target lesions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Carcinoma, hepatocellular; Magnetic resonance imaging; Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours; Sorafenib; Tomography, X-ray computed
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: Josep M Llovet; Sergio Ricci; Vincenzo Mazzaferro; Philip Hilgard; Edward Gane; Jean-Frédéric Blanc; Andre Cosme de Oliveira; Armando Santoro; Jean-Luc Raoul; Alejandro Forner; Myron Schwartz; Camillo Porta; Stefan Zeuzem; Luigi Bolondi; Tim F Greten; Peter R Galle; Jean-François Seitz; Ivan Borbath; Dieter Häussinger; Tom Giannaris; Minghua Shan; Marius Moscovici; Dimitris Voliotis; Jordi Bruix Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-07-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jinhong Jung; Ji Hyeon Joo; So Yeon Kim; Jin Hyoung Kim; Jonggi Choi; Danbi Lee; Ju Hyun Shim; Kang Mo Kim; Young-Suk Lim; Han Chu Lee; Jin-Hong Park; Sang Min Yoon Journal: Liver Cancer Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 12.430
Authors: Matteo Renzulli; Nicolò Brandi; Anna Pecorelli; Luigi Vincenzo Pastore; Alessandro Granito; Giuseppe Martinese; Francesco Tovoli; Mario Simonetti; Elton Dajti; Antonio Colecchia; Rita Golfieri Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-03-29
Authors: S Colagrande; L Calistri; C Campani; G Dragoni; C Lorini; C Nardi; A Castellani; F Marra Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-08-22 Impact factor: 5.315