Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Original Article

A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice

Authors: Giovanni Cappello, Vittorio Romano, Emanuele Neri, Laure Fournier, Melvin D’Anastasi, Andrea Laghi, Giulia A. Zamboni, Regina G. H. Beets-Tan, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Daniele Regge

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2023

Abstract

Objectives

To present the results of a survey on the assessment of treatment response with imaging in oncologic patient, in routine clinical practice. The survey was promoted by the European Society of Oncologic Imaging to gather information for the development of reporting models and recommendations.

Methods

The survey was launched on the European Society of Oncologic Imaging website and was available for 3 weeks. It consisted of 5 sections, including 24 questions related to the following topics: demographic and professional information, methods for lesion measurement, how to deal with diminutive lesions, how to report baseline and follow-up examinations, which previous studies should be used for comparison, and role of RECIST 1.1 criteria in the daily clinical practice.

Results

A total of 286 responses were received. Most responders followed the RECIST 1.1 recommendations for the measurement of target lesions and lymph nodes and for the assessment of tumor response. To assess response, 48.6% used previous and/or best response study in addition to baseline, 25.2% included the evaluation of all main time points, and 35% used as the reference only the previous study. A considerable number of responders used RECIST 1.1 criteria in daily clinical practice (41.6%) or thought that they should be always applied (60.8%).

Conclusion

Since standardized criteria are mainly a prerogative of clinical trials, in daily routine, reporting strategies are left to radiologists and oncologists, which may issue local and diversified recommendations. The survey emphasizes the need for more generally applicable rules for response assessment in clinical practice.

Critical relevance statement

Compared to clinical trials which use specific criteria to evaluate response to oncological treatments, the free narrative report usually adopted in daily clinical practice may lack clarity and useful information, and therefore, more structured approaches are needed.

Key points

· Most radiologists consider standardized reporting strategies essential for an objective assessment of tumor response in clinical practice.

· Radiologists increasingly rely on RECIST 1.1 in their daily clinical practice.

· Treatment response evaluation should require a complete analysis of all imaging time points and not only of the last.

Graphical Abstract

Available only for authorised users

Grimaldi S, Terroir M, Caramella C (2018) Advances in oncological treatment: limitations of RECIST 11 criteria. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 62(2):129–139. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1824-4785.17.03038-2CrossRefPubMed

World Health Organization (1979) WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. World Health Organization. Accessed 18 June 2023. Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/37200

Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(3):205–216. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.3.205CrossRefPubMed

Jang GS, Kim MJ, Ha HI et al (2013) Comparison of RECIST version 1.0 and 1.1 in assessment of tumor response by computed tomography in advanced gastric cancer. Chin J Cancer Res. 25(6):689–694. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.1000-9604.2013.11.09CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45(2):228–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026

Schwartz LH, Litière S, de Vries E et al (2016) RECIST 1.1-update and clarification: from the RECIST committee. Eur J Cancer 62:132–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.03.081CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Fournier L, de Geus-Oei LF, Regge D et al (2021) Twenty years on: RECIST as a biomarker of response in solid tumours an EORTC imaging group - ESOI joint paper. Front Oncol 11:800547. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.800547

Sohaib A (2014) Response assessment in daily practice: RECIST and its modifications. Cancer Imaging 14(S1):O35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1470-7330-14-S1-O35CrossRefPubMedCentral

Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H (2011) Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology 260(1):174–181. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101913CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Wibmer A, Vargas HA, Sosa R, Zheng J, Moskowitz C, Hricak H (2014) Value of a standardized lexicon for reporting levels of diagnostic certainty in prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203(6):W651–657. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12654CrossRefPubMed

11.

Weber TF, Spurny M, Hasse FC et al (2020) Improving radiologic communication in oncology: a single-centre experience with structured reporting for cancer patients. Insights Imaging 11(1):106. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00907-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Campbell I (2007) Chi-squared and Fisher-Irwin tests of two-by-two tables with small sample recommendations. Stat Med 26(19):3661–3675. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2832CrossRefPubMed

13.

Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC et al (2007) Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol 25(13):1753–1759. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.07.3049CrossRefPubMed

14.

Lencioni R, Llovet JM (2010) Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis 30(1):52–60. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1247132CrossRefPubMed

15.

Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF et al (2014) Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol 32(27):3059–3068. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.54.8800CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Cheson BD, Ansell S, Schwartz L et al (2016) Refinement of the Lugano Classification lymphoma response criteria in the era of immunomodulatory therapy. Blood 128(21):2489–2496. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2016-05-718528CrossRefPubMed

17.

Younes A, Hilden P, Coiffier B et al (2017) International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017). Ann Oncol 28(7):1436–1447. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx097CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Seymour L, Bogaerts J, Perrone A et al (2017) iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol 18(3):e143–e152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30074-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Franconeri A, Fang J, Carney B et al (2018) Structured vs narrative reporting of pelvic MRI for fibroids: clarity and impact on treatment planning. Eur Radiol 28(7):3009–3017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5161-9CrossRefPubMed

20.

Park SB, Kim MJ, Ko Y et al (2019) Structured reporting versus free-text reporting for appendiceal computed tomography in adolescents and young adults: preference survey of 594 referring physicians, surgeons, and radiologists from 20 hospitals. Korean J Radiol 20(2):246–255. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0109CrossRefPubMed

21.

Feinberg BA, Zettler ME, Klink AJ, Lee CH, Gajra A, Kish JK (2021) Comparison of solid tumor treatment response observed in clinical practice with response reported in clinical trials. JAMA Netw Open 4(2):e2036741. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.36741CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Schomburg L, Malouhi A, Grimm MO et al (2022) iRECIST-based versus non-standardized free text reporting of CT scans for monitoring metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective comparison. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 148(8):2003–2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-022-03997-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Goebel J, Hoischen J, Gramsch C et al (2017) Tumor response assessment: comparison between unstructured free text reporting in routine clinical workflow and computer-aided evaluation based on RECIST 1.1 criteria. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 143(12):2527–2533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-017-2488-1CrossRefPubMed

24.

James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M et al (1999) Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst 91(6):523–528. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/91.6.523CrossRefPubMed

25.

Cortes J, Rodriguez J, Diaz-Gonzalez JA et al (2002) Comparison of unidimensional and bidimensional measurements in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 87(2):158–160. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600449CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Bi WL, Hosny A, Schabath MB et al (2019) Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: clinical challenges and applications. CA Cancer J Clin 69(2):127–157. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21552

27.

Lee SL, Lee HH, Ku YM, Jeon HM (2015) Usefulness of two-dimensional values measured using preoperative multidetector computed tomography in predicting lymph node metastasis of gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 22(Suppl 3):S786–793. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4621-1CrossRefPubMed

28.

Elsholtz FHJ, Asbach P, Haas M et al (2021) Introducing the Node Reporting and Data System 1.0 (Node-RADS): a concept for standardized assessment of lymph nodes in cancer. Eur Radiol. 31(8):6116–6124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07572-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Sevenster M, Travis AR, Ganesh RK et al (2015) Improved efficiency in clinical workflow of reporting measured oncology lesions via PACS-integrated lesion tracking tool. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204(3):576–583. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12915CrossRefPubMed

Title: A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice
Authors: Giovanni Cappello
Vittorio Romano
Emanuele Neri
Laure Fournier
Melvin D’Anastasi
Andrea Laghi
Giulia A. Zamboni
Regina G. H. Beets-Tan
Heinz-Peter Schlemmer
Daniele Regge
Publication date: 01-12-2023
Publisher: Springer Vienna
Published in: Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01568-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Critical relevance statement

Key points

Graphical Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Critical relevance statement

Key points

Graphical Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Optimal combination periprosthetic vasculature visualization and metal artifact reduction by spectral computed tomography using virtual monoenergetic images in total hip arthroplasty

Dual-layer spectral-detector CT for predicting microsatellite instability status and prognosis in locally advanced gastric cancer

Correlation analysis of MR elastography and Ki-67 expression in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Subchondral insufficiency fractures, subchondral insufficiency fractures with osteonecrosis, and other apparently spontaneous subchondral bone lesions of the knee—pathogenesis and diagnosis at imaging

MRI of acute neck infections: evidence summary and pictorial review

Topological data analysis in medical imaging: current state of the art