Search

In imaging-based clinical trials, it is common practice to perform double reads for each image, discrepant interpretations can result from these two different evaluations. In this study we analyzed discrepancies that occurred between local investigators (LI) and blinded independent central review (BICR) by comparing reader-selected imaging scans and lesions. Our goal was to identify the causes of discrepant declarations of progressive disease (PD) between LI and BICR in a clinical trial. We retrospectively analyzed imaging data from a RECIST 1.1-based, multi-sites, phase II clinical trial of 179 patients with adult small cell lung cancer, treated with Cabazitaxel compared to Topotecan. Any discrepancies in the determination of PD between LI and BICR readers were reviewed by a third-party adjudicator. For each imaging time point and reader, we recorded the selected target lesions, non-target lesions, and new lesions. Odds ratios were calculated to measure the association between discrepant declarations of PD and the differences in reviewed imaging scans (e.g. same imaging modality but with different reconstruction parameters) and selected lesions. Reasons for discrepancies were analyzed. The average number of target lesions found by LI and BICR was respectively 2.9 and 3.4 per patient (p< 0.05), 18.4% of these target lesions were actually non-measurable. LI and BICR performed their evaluations based on different baseline imaging scans for 59% of the patients, they selected at least one different target lesion in 85% of patients. A total of 36.7% of patients required adjudication. Reasons of adjudication included differences in 1) reporting new lesions (53.7%), 2) the measured change of the tumor burden (18.5%), and 3) the progression of non-target lesions (11.2%). The rate of discrepancy was not associated with the selection of non-measurable target lesions or with the readers’ assessment of different images. Paradoxically, more discrepancies occurred when LI and BICR selected exactly the same target lesions at baseline compared to when readers selected not exactly the same lesions. For a large proportion of evaluations, LI and BICR did not select the same imaging scans and target lesions but with a limited impact on the rate of discrepancy. The majority of discrepancies were explained by the difference in detecting new lesions. ARD12166 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01500720).

For oncological evaluations, quantitative radiology gives clinicians significant insight into patients’ response to therapy. In regard to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), the classification of disease evolution partly consists in applying thresholds to the measurement of the relative change of tumour. In the case of tumour volumetry, response thresholds have not yet been established. This study proposes and validates a model for calculating thresholds for the detection of minimal tumour change when using the volume of pulmonary lesions on CT as imaging biomarker. Our work is based on the reliability analysis of tumour volume measurements documented by the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance. Statistics of measurements were entered into a multi-parametric mathematical model of the relative changes derived from the Geary-Hinkley transformation. The consistency of the model was tested by comparing modelled thresholds against Monte Carlo simulations of tumour volume measurements with additive random error. The model has been validated by repeating measurements on real patient follow ups. For unchanged tumour volume, relying on a normal distribution of error, the agreement between model and simulations featured a type I error of 5.25 %. Thus, we established that a threshold of 35 % of volume reduction corresponds to a partial response (PR) and a 55 % volume increase corresponds to progressive disease (PD). Changes between −35 and +55 % are categorized as stable disease (SD). Tested on real clinical data, 97.1 % [95.7; 98.0] of assessments fall into the range of variability predicted by our model of confidence interval. Our study indicates that the Geary Hinkley model, using published statistics, is appropriate to predict response thresholds for the volume of pulmonary lesions on CT.