Menu
Peptide Database
Results
No peptides found
Featured

Use search to browse all 100+ peptides

KPV

Lys-Pro-Val, α-MSH (11-13)

Quick Stats
Studies 104
Trials 57
2022 pubmed 10 citations

Interobserver Variability in CT-based Morphologic Tumor Response Assessment of Colorectal Liver Metastases.

Wesdorp. Nina J NJ; Kemna. Ruby R; Bolhuis. Karen K; van Waesberghe. Jan H T M JHTM; Nota. Irene M G C IMGC; Struik. Femke F; Oulad Abdennabi. Ikrame I; Phoa. Saffire S K S SSKS; van Dieren. Susan S; van Amerongen. Martinus J MJ; Chapelle. Thiery T; Dejong. Cornelis H C CHC; Engelbrecht. Marc R W MRW; Gerhards. Michael F MF; Grünhagen. Dirk D; van Gulik. Thomas M TM; Hermans. John J JJ; de Jong. Koert P KP; Klaase. Joost M JM; Liem. Mike S L MSL; van Lienden. Krijn P KP; Molenaar. I Quintus IQ; Patijn. Gijs A GA; Rijken. Arjen M AM; Ruers. Theo M TM; Verhoef. Cornelis C; de Wilt. Johannes H W JHW; Swijnenburg. Rutger-Jan RJ; Punt. Cornelis J A CJA; Huiskens. Joost J; Stoker. Jaap J; Kazemier. Geert G

Key Findings

  • Interobserver agreement on CT morphologic response was moderate (kappa ~0.53‑0.54).
  • Patients receiving bevacizumab and those with RAS/BRAF mutations showed more optimal morphologic responses.
  • RECIST 1.1 size measurements did not correlate with morphologic response.

Practical Outcomes

  • For self‑directed health optimizers, the findings offer little direct guidance. It mainly shows that radiology assessments can vary, so relying on CT visual scores alone isn’t a reliable self‑monitoring tool for cancer treatment outcomes.

Summary

The study checked how consistently three radiologists judged liver tumor changes on CT scans after chemotherapy and found only moderate agreement, meaning the readings can differ quite a bit. It also noted that certain drugs and gene mutations seemed linked to better-looking scans, but the usual size‑based measurements (RECIST) didn’t match these visual changes. This information is mainly relevant for doctors interpreting scans, not for DIY health hacks.

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate interobserver variability in the morphologic tumor response assessment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) managed with systemic therapy and to assess the relation of morphologic response with gene mutation status, targeted therapy, and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 measurements. Materials and Methods Participants with initially unresectable CRLM receiving different systemic therapy regimens from the randomized, controlled CAIRO5 trial (NCT02162563) were included in this prospective imaging study. Three radiologists independently assessed morphologic tumor response on baseline and first follow-up CT scans according to previously published criteria. Two additional radiologists evaluated disagreement cases. Interobserver agreement was calculated by using Fleiss &#x3ba;. On the basis of the majority of individual radiologic assessments, the final morphologic tumor response was determined. Finally, the relation of morphologic tumor response and clinical prognostic parameters was assessed. Results In total, 153 participants (median age, 63 years [IQR, 56-71]; 101 men) with 306 CT scans comprising 2192 CRLM were included. Morphologic assessment performed by the three radiologists yielded 86 (56%) agreement cases and 67 (44%) disagreement cases (including four major disagreement cases). Overall interobserver agreement between the panel radiologists on morphology groups and morphologic response categories was moderate (&#x3ba; = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.58 and &#x3ba; = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.60). Optimal morphologic response was particularly observed in patients treated with bevacizumab (<i>P</i> = .001) and in patients with <i>RAS/BRAF</i> mutation (<i>P</i> = .04). No evidence of a relationship between RECIST 1.1 and morphologic response was found (<i>P</i> = .61). Conclusion Morphologic tumor response assessment following systemic therapy in participants with CRLM demonstrated considerable interobserver variability. <b>Keywords:</b> Tumor Response, Observer Performance, CT, Liver, Metastases, Oncology, Abdomen/Gastrointestinal Clinical trial registration no. NCT02162563 <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> &#xa9; RSNA, 2022.

Study Information

Provider

pubmed

Year

2022

Date

2022-05-01T00:00:00.000Z

DOI

10.1148/rycan.210105

Citations

10

References

30