Comparative Effectiveness of Tumor Response Assessment Methods: Standard of Care Versus Computer-Assisted Response Evaluation.
PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of metastatic tumor response evaluation with computed tomography using computer-assisted versus manual methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective study, 11 readers from 10 different institutions independently categorized tumor response according to three different therapeutic response criteria by using paired baseline and initial post-therapy computed tomography studies from 20 randomly selected patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with sunitinib as part of a completed phase III multi-institutional study. Images were evaluated with a manual tumor response evaluation method (standard of care) and with computer-assisted response evaluation (CARE) that included stepwise guidance, interactive error identification and correction methods, automated tumor metric extraction, calculations, response categorization, and data and image archiving. A crossover design, patient randomization, and 2-week washout period were used to reduce recall bias. Comparative effectiveness metrics included error rate and mean patient evaluation time. RESULTS: The standard-of-care method, on average, was associated with one or more errors in 30.5% (6.1 of 20) of patients, whereas CARE had a 0.0% (0.0 of 20) error rate ( P < .001). The most common errors were related to data transfer and arithmetic calculation. In patients with errors, the median number of error types was 1 (range, 1 to 3). Mean patient evaluation time with CARE was twice as fast as the standard-of-care method (6.4 minutes v 13.1 minutes; P < .001). CONCLUSION: CARE reduced errors and time of evaluation, which indicated better overall effectiveness than manual tumor response evaluation methods that are the current standard of care.
Allen, BC; Florez, E; Sirous, R; Lirette, ST; Griswold, M; Remer, EM; Wang, ZJ; Bieszczad, JE; Cox, KL; Goenka, AH; Howard-Claudio, CM; Kang, HC; Nandwana, SB; Sanyal, R; Shinagare, AB; Henegan, JC; Storrs, J; Davenport, MS; Ganeshan, B; Vasanji, A; Rini, B; Smith, AD
Volume / Issue
Start / End Page
Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)