Observer variability in a phase II trial – assessing consistency in RECIST application

References

• Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, Sabloff BS, Truong MT, Herbst RS, . Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: Implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2574–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suzuki C, Torkzad MR, Jacobsson H, Astrom G, Sundin A, Hatschek T, . Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the response evaluation of cancer therapy according to RECIST and WHO-criteria. Acta Oncol 2010;49:509–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiesse P, Ollivier L, Di Stefano-Louineau D, Negrier S, Savary J, Pignard K, . Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: Reasons for interobserver variability. Groupe Francais d’Immunotherapie of the Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15:3507–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, . 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 2000;92:205–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, . New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaerts J, Ford R, Sargent D, Schwartz LH, Rubinstein L, Lacombe D, . Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45:248–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J. RECIST revisited: A review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:1031–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suzuki C, Jacobsson H, Hatschek T, Torkzad MR, Boden K, Eriksson-Alm Y, . Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: Practical approaches and limitations. Radiographics 2008;28:329–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaelis LC, Ratain MJ. Measuring response in a post-RECIST world: From black and white to shades of grey. Nat Rev Cancer 2006;6:409–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhauer EA. Response evaluation: Beyond RECIST. Ann Oncol 2007;18(Suppl 9):ix29–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husband JE, Schwartz LH, Spencer J, Ollivier L, King DM, Johnson R, . Evaluation of the response to treatment of solid tumours – a consensus statement of the International Cancer Imaging Society. Br J Cancer 2004;90:2256–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaffe CC. Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3245–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nygren P, Blomqvist L, Bergh J, Astrom G. Radiological assessment of tumour response to anti-cancer drugs: Time to reappraise. Acta Oncol 2008;47:316–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Therasse P. Measuring the clinical response. What does it mean? Eur J Cancer 2002;38:1817–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopper KD, Kasales CJ, Van Slyke MA, Schwartz TA, Tenhave TR, Jozefiak JA. Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:851–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belton AL, Saini S, Liebermann K, Boland GW, Halpern EF. Tumour size measurement in an oncology clinical trial: Comparison between off-site and on-site measurements. Clin Radiol 2003;58:311–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford R, Schwartz L, Dancey J, Dodd LE, Eisenhauer EA, Gwyther S, . Lessons learned from independent central review. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:268–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soffa DJ, Lewis RS, Sunshine JH, Bhargavan M. Disagreement in interpretation: A method for the development of benchmarks for quality assurance in imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2004;1:212–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mahgerefteh S, Kruskal JB, Yam CS, Blachar A, Sosna J. Peer review in diagnostic radiology: Current state and a vision for the future. Radiographics 2009;29:1221–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halsted MJ. Radiology peer review as an opportunity to reduce errors and improve patient care. J Am Coll Radiol 2004;1:984–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee JK. Quality – a radiology imperative: Interpretation accuracy and pertinence. J Am Coll Radiol 2007;4:162–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• FitzGerald R. Radiological error: Analysis, standard setting, targeted instruction and teamworking. Eur Radiol 2005; 15:1760–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swensen SJ, Johnson CD. Radiologic quality and safety: Mapping value into radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 2005;2: 992–1000.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abujudeh HH, Boland GW, Kaewlai R, Rabiner P, Halpern EF, Gazelle GS, . Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: Discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists. Eur Radiol 2010; 20:1952–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goddard P, Leslie A, Jones A, Wakeley C, Kabala J. Error in radiology. Br J Radiol 2001;74:949–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar