PURPOSE: We evaluated the impact of an evaluation committee (EC) on patients' overall response status in a large multicenter trial in oncology. We identified reasons for disagreements between investigators and the EC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Cancer Renal Cytokine (CRECY) study was a French multicenter trial that tested cytokine therapy in 489 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Objective response (OR) evaluation included medical imaging and was studied according to international guidelines. A blinded peer review of all responders and litigious cases was performed by an EC. RESULTS: Major disagreements occurred in 40% and minor disagreements in 10.5% of the reviewed files. The number of significant tumor responses was reduced by 23.2% after review by the EC. Reasons for disagreements included errors in tumor measurements, errors in selection of measurable targets, intercurrent diseases, and radiologic technical problems. These reasons for disagreements are analyzed and discussed. CONCLUSION: We conclude that all therapeutic trial results should be reviewed by peer analysis of all presumed responders by an EC. International guidelines for response evaluation should be updated by including more reliable methods of measurements and definition of minimal imaging procedures.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the impact of an evaluation committee (EC) on patients' overall response status in a large multicenter trial in oncology. We identified reasons for disagreements between investigators and the EC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Cancer Renal Cytokine (CRECY) study was a French multicenter trial that tested cytokine therapy in 489 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Objective response (OR) evaluation included medical imaging and was studied according to international guidelines. A blinded peer review of all responders and litigious cases was performed by an EC. RESULTS: Major disagreements occurred in 40% and minor disagreements in 10.5% of the reviewed files. The number of significant tumor responses was reduced by 23.2% after review by the EC. Reasons for disagreements included errors in tumor measurements, errors in selection of measurable targets, intercurrent diseases, and radiologic technical problems. These reasons for disagreements are analyzed and discussed. CONCLUSION: We conclude that all therapeutic trial results should be reviewed by peer analysis of all presumed responders by an EC. International guidelines for response evaluation should be updated by including more reliable methods of measurements and definition of minimal imaging procedures.
Authors: Wayne L Monsky; Vassilios Raptopoulos; Mary T Keogan; David Doty; Ihab Kamel; Chun Sam Yam; Bernard J Ransil Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-12-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Benjamin M Ellingson; Martin Bendszus; Jerrold Boxerman; Daniel Barboriak; Bradley J Erickson; Marion Smits; Sarah J Nelson; Elizabeth Gerstner; Brian Alexander; Gregory Goldmacher; Wolfgang Wick; Michael Vogelbaum; Michael Weller; Evanthia Galanis; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Lalitha Shankar; Paula Jacobs; Whitney B Pope; Dewen Yang; Caroline Chung; Michael V Knopp; Soonme Cha; Martin J van den Bent; Susan Chang; W K Al Yung; Timothy F Cloughesy; Patrick Y Wen; Mark R Gilbert Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Marga B Rominger; Daphne Fournell; Beenarose Thanka Nadar; Sarah N M Behrens; Jens H Figiel; Boris Keil; Johannes T Heverhagen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-01-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Binsheng Zhao; Leonard P James; Chaya S Moskowitz; Pingzhen Guo; Michelle S Ginsberg; Robert A Lefkowitz; Yilin Qin; Gregory J Riely; Mark G Kris; Lawrence H Schwartz Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Evanthia Galanis; Jan C Buckner; Matthew J Maurer; Rene Sykora; René Castillo; Karla V Ballman; Bradley J Erickson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2006-03-02 Impact factor: 12.300