Sandra Huicochea Castellanos1, Andrew Pagano2, Andrew J Plodkowski3, Jeffrey Girshman3, Matthew D Hellmann4, Hira Rizvi4, Jessica Flynn5, Junting Zheng5, Marinela Capanu5, Darragh F Halpenny6, Michelle S Ginsberg3. 1. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine-New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY 10065, United States. 2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, United States. Electronic address: paganoa@mskcc.org. 3. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, United States. 4. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, United States. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, United States. 6. Department of Radiology, Tallaght University Hospital, Dublin D24 NR04, Ireland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the inter- and intra-reader agreement of immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (iRECIST) and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) in patients with lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 85 patients with lung cancer treated with PD-1 blockade. Four radiologists evaluated computed topography (CT) scans before and after initiation of immunotherapy using iRECIST and RECIST 1.1. Weighted kappa (k) with equal weights was used to assess the intra-reader agreement between 2 repeated reads on overall response at all time points, best overall response, and the response at the time point of progression, as well as the intra-reader agreement between iRECIST and RECIST. The inter-reader agreement was calculated using Light's kappa. RESULTS: Intra-reader agreement for overall response at all time points, best overall response, and time point of progression was substantial to almost perfect for both iRECIST and RECIST 1.1 (k = 0.651-0.983). Inter-reader agreement was substantial for iRECIST (κ = 0.657-0.742) while RECIST 1.1 was moderate to substantial (κ = 0.587-0.686). The level of inter-reader agreement was not higher on repeat read for iRECIST (κ = 0.677-0.709 and κ = 0.657-0.742 for first and second read, respectively) as well as for RECIST 1.1 (κ = 0.587-0.659 and κ = 0.633-0.686 for first and second read, respectively). Almost perfect agreement was observed between RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST at first (κ = 0.813-0.923) and second read (κ = 0.841-0.912). CONCLUSION: The inter- and intra-reader agreement of iRECIST is high and similar to RECIST 1.1 in patients with lung cancer treated with immunotherapy.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the inter- and intra-reader agreement of immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (iRECIST) and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) in patients with lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 85 patients with lung cancer treated with PD-1 blockade. Four radiologists evaluated computed topography (CT) scans before and after initiation of immunotherapy using iRECIST and RECIST 1.1. Weighted kappa (k) with equal weights was used to assess the intra-reader agreement between 2 repeated reads on overall response at all time points, best overall response, and the response at the time point of progression, as well as the intra-reader agreement between iRECIST and RECIST. The inter-reader agreement was calculated using Light's kappa. RESULTS: Intra-reader agreement for overall response at all time points, best overall response, and time point of progression was substantial to almost perfect for both iRECIST and RECIST 1.1 (k = 0.651-0.983). Inter-reader agreement was substantial for iRECIST (κ = 0.657-0.742) while RECIST 1.1 was moderate to substantial (κ = 0.587-0.686). The level of inter-reader agreement was not higher on repeat read for iRECIST (κ = 0.677-0.709 and κ = 0.657-0.742 for first and second read, respectively) as well as for RECIST 1.1 (κ = 0.587-0.659 and κ = 0.633-0.686 for first and second read, respectively). Almost perfect agreement was observed between RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST at first (κ = 0.813-0.923) and second read (κ = 0.841-0.912). CONCLUSION: The inter- and intra-reader agreement of iRECIST is high and similar to RECIST 1.1 in patients with lung cancer treated with immunotherapy.
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: M Tazdait; L Mezquita; J Lahmar; R Ferrara; F Bidault; S Ammari; C Balleyguier; D Planchard; A Gazzah; J C Soria; A Marabelle; B Besse; C Caramella Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-11-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: F Stephen Hodi; Steven J O'Day; David F McDermott; Robert W Weber; Jeffrey A Sosman; John B Haanen; Rene Gonzalez; Caroline Robert; Dirk Schadendorf; Jessica C Hassel; Wallace Akerley; Alfons J M van den Eertwegh; Jose Lutzky; Paul Lorigan; Julia M Vaubel; Gerald P Linette; David Hogg; Christian H Ottensmeier; Celeste Lebbé; Christian Peschel; Ian Quirt; Joseph I Clark; Jedd D Wolchok; Jeffrey S Weber; Jason Tian; Michael J Yellin; Geoffrey M Nichol; Axel Hoos; Walter J Urba Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lucian Beer; Maximilian Hochmair; Alexander R Haug; Bernhard Schwabel; Daria Kifjak; Wolfgang Wadsak; Thorsten Fuereder; Hannah Fabikan; Andreas Fazekas; Sophia Schwab; Marius E Mayerhoefer; Christian Herold; Helmut Prosch Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Edward B Garon; Naiyer A Rizvi; Rina Hui; Natasha Leighl; Ani S Balmanoukian; Joseph Paul Eder; Amita Patnaik; Charu Aggarwal; Matthew Gubens; Leora Horn; Enric Carcereny; Myung-Ju Ahn; Enriqueta Felip; Jong-Seok Lee; Matthew D Hellmann; Omid Hamid; Jonathan W Goldman; Jean-Charles Soria; Marisa Dolled-Filhart; Ruth Z Rutledge; Jin Zhang; Jared K Lunceford; Reshma Rangwala; Gregory M Lubiniecki; Charlotte Roach; Kenneth Emancipator; Leena Gandhi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hossein Borghaei; Luis Paz-Ares; Leora Horn; David R Spigel; Martin Steins; Neal E Ready; Laura Q Chow; Everett E Vokes; Enriqueta Felip; Esther Holgado; Fabrice Barlesi; Martin Kohlhäufl; Oscar Arrieta; Marco Angelo Burgio; Jérôme Fayette; Hervé Lena; Elena Poddubskaya; David E Gerber; Scott N Gettinger; Charles M Rudin; Naiyer Rizvi; Lucio Crinò; George R Blumenschein; Scott J Antonia; Cécile Dorange; Christopher T Harbison; Friedrich Graf Finckenstein; Julie R Brahmer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeremy J Erasmus; Gregory W Gladish; Lyle Broemeling; Bradley S Sabloff; Mylene T Truong; Roy S Herbst; Reginald F Munden Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544