iRECIST-based versus non-standardized free text reporting of CT scans for monitoring metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective comparison.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Therapy decision for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is highly dependent on disease monitoring based on radiological reports. The purpose of the study was to compare non-standardized, common practice free text reporting (FTR) on disease response with reporting based on response evaluation criteria in solid tumors modified for immune-based therapeutics (iRECIST). METHODS: Fifty patients with advanced mRCC were included in the retrospective, single-center study. CT scans had been evaluated and FTR prepared in accordance with center's routine practice. For study purposes, reports were re-evaluated using a dedicated computer program that applied iRECIST. Patients were followed up over a period of 22.8 ± 7.9 months in intervals of 2.7 ± 1.8 months. Weighted kappa statistics was run to assess strength of agreement. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors for different rating. RESULTS: Agreement between FTR and iRECIST-based reporting was moderate (kappa 0.38 [95% CI 0.2-0.6] to 0.70 [95% CI 0.5-0.9]). Tumor response or progression according to FTR were not confirmed with iRECIST in 19 (38%) or 11 (22%) patients, respectively, in at least one follow-up examination. With FTR, new lesions were frequently not recognized if they were already identified in the recent prior follow-up examination (odds ratio for too favorable rating of disease response compared to iRECIST 5.4 [95% CI 2.9-10.1]. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate agreement between disease response according to FTR or iRECIST in patients with mRCC suggests the need of standardized quantitative radiological assessment in daily clinical practice.