Discrepant Assessments of Progressive Disease in Clinical Trials between Routine Clinical Reads and Formal RECIST 1.1 Interpretations.

Purpose To analyze the frequency of discrepant interpretations of progressive disease (PD) between routine clinical and formal Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 interpretations in patients enrolled in solid tumor clinical trials and investigate the causes of discordance. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients in solid tumor clinical trials undergoing imaging response assessments based on RECIST 1.1 from January to July 2021. Routine clinical interpretations (RCIs) performed as part of standard workflow and not requiring formal use of any established response criteria were compared with separate local core laboratory interpretations (CLIs) by specially trained radiologists who used software that tracks target lesion measurements, changes in nontarget lesions, and appearance of new lesions longitudinally. The comparison focused on discordant interpretations of PD. Results Among 1053 patients who had both RCIs and CLIs performed, PD was diagnosed on one or both reads in 327 patients (median age, 63.6 [range, 22.4-83.2] years; 57.8% female patients). The RCIs and CLIs agreed with PD status in 65% (213 of 327) of assessments. In 32% (105 of 327) of assessments, RCIs overdiagnosed PD when CLIs diagnosed stable disease, and in 3% (nine of 327), CLIs diagnosed PD when RCIs diagnosed stable disease. Reasons for discrepant RCIs of PD included erroneous target lesion measurements (58%, 61 of 105), erroneous diagnosis of nontarget progression (30%, 32 of 105), and misclassification of new lesions as cancer (11%, 12 of 105). Most patients (93%, 98 of 105) with RCI overdiagnosis of PD remained in the clinical trial for one or more treatment cycles. Conclusion PD was frequently overdiagnosed on RCIs versus formal RECIST 1.1 CLIs which could result in patients removed from the clinical trial inappropriately. Keywords: Oncology, Cancer, Tumor Response, MR Imaging, CT © RSNA, 2023 See also commentary by Margolis and Ruchalski in this issue.