Skip to main content

Comparative Effectiveness of Tumor Response Assessment Methods: Standard of Care Versus Computer-Assisted Response Evaluation.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Allen, BC; Florez, E; Sirous, R; Lirette, ST; Griswold, M; Remer, EM; Wang, ZJ; Bieszczad, JE; Cox, KL; Goenka, AH; Howard-Claudio, CM ...
Published in: JCO Clin Cancer Inform
November 2017

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.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

JCO Clin Cancer Inform

DOI

EISSN

2473-4276

Publication Date

November 2017

Volume

1

Start / End Page

1 / 16

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Treatment Outcome
  • Tomography, X-Ray Computed
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Standard of Care
  • Quality Assurance, Health Care
  • Observer Variation
  • Neoplasms
  • Multicenter Studies as Topic
  • Middle Aged
  • Medical Oncology
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Allen, B. C., Florez, E., Sirous, R., Lirette, S. T., Griswold, M., Remer, E. M., … Smith, A. D. (2017). Comparative Effectiveness of Tumor Response Assessment Methods: Standard of Care Versus Computer-Assisted Response Evaluation. JCO Clin Cancer Inform, 1, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI.17.00026
Allen, Brian C., Edward Florez, Reza Sirous, Seth T. Lirette, Michael Griswold, Erick M. Remer, Zhen J. Wang, et al. “Comparative Effectiveness of Tumor Response Assessment Methods: Standard of Care Versus Computer-Assisted Response Evaluation.JCO Clin Cancer Inform 1 (November 2017): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI.17.00026.
Allen BC, Florez E, Sirous R, Lirette ST, Griswold M, Remer EM, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Tumor Response Assessment Methods: Standard of Care Versus Computer-Assisted Response Evaluation. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2017 Nov;1:1–16.
Allen, Brian C., et al. “Comparative Effectiveness of Tumor Response Assessment Methods: Standard of Care Versus Computer-Assisted Response Evaluation.JCO Clin Cancer Inform, vol. 1, Nov. 2017, pp. 1–16. Pubmed, doi:10.1200/CCI.17.00026.
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. Comparative Effectiveness of Tumor Response Assessment Methods: Standard of Care Versus Computer-Assisted Response Evaluation. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2017 Nov;1:1–16.

Published In

JCO Clin Cancer Inform

DOI

EISSN

2473-4276

Publication Date

November 2017

Volume

1

Start / End Page

1 / 16

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Treatment Outcome
  • Tomography, X-Ray Computed
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Standard of Care
  • Quality Assurance, Health Care
  • Observer Variation
  • Neoplasms
  • Multicenter Studies as Topic
  • Middle Aged
  • Medical Oncology