ESR Essentials: response assessment criteria in oncologic imaging-practice recommendations by the European Society of Oncologic Imaging.

Assessing the response to oncological treatments is paramount for determining the prognosis and defining the best treatment for each patient. Several biomarkers, including imaging, can be used, but standardization is fundamental for consistency and reliability. Tumor response evaluation criteria have been defined by international groups for application in pharmaceutical clinical trials evaluating new drugs or therapeutic strategies. RECIST 1.1 criteria are exclusively based on unidimensional lesion measurements; changes in tumor size are used as surrogate imaging biomarkers to correlate with patient outcomes. However, increased tumor size does not always reflect tumor progression. The introduction of immunotherapy has led to the development of new criteria (iRECIST, Level of Evidence (LoE) Ib) that consider the possibility that an increase in disease burden is secondary to the immune response instead of progression, with the new concept of Unconfirmed Progressive Disease (a first progression event which must be confirmed on follow-up). Specific criteria were devised for HCC (mRECIST, LoE IV), which measure only enhancing HCC portions to account for changes after local therapy. For GIST treated with imatinib, criteria were developed to account for the possible increase in size reflecting a response rather than a progression by assessing both tumor size and density on CT (Choi, LoE II). This article provides concise and relevant practice recommendations aimed at general radiologists to help choose and apply the most appropriate criteria for assessing response to treatment in different oncologic scenarios. Though these criteria were developed for clinical trials, they may be applied in clinical practice as a guide for day-to-day interpretation. KEY POINTS: Response evaluation criteria, designed for use in clinical trials, might serve as a surrogate biomarker for overall survival. RECIST 1.1 defines measurable and non-measurable disease among which target lesions and non-target lesions are selected at baseline as reference for follow-ups. Some therapies and/or cancers require the use of different criteria, such as iRECIST, mRECIST, and Choi criteria.

O-RADS MRI scoring system has the potential to reduce the frequency of avoidable adnexal surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential impact of the O-RADS MRI score on the decision-making process for the management of adnexal masses. METHODS: EURAD database (prospective, European observational, multicenter study) was queried to identify asymptomatic women without history of infertility included between March 1st and March 31st 2018, with available surgical pathology or clinical findings at 2-year clinical follow-up. Blinded to final diagnosis, we stratified patients into five categories according to the O-RADS MRI score (absent i.e. non adnexal, benign, probably benign, indeterminate, probably malignant). Prospective management was compared to theoretical management according to the score established as following: those with presumed benign masses (scored O-RADS MRI 2 or 3) (follow-up recommended) and those with presumed malignant masses (scored O-RADS MRI 4 or 5) (surgery recommended). RESULTS: The accuracy of the score for assessing the origin of the mass was of 97.2 % (564/580, CI95% 0.96-0.98) and was of 92.0 % (484/526) for categorizing lesions with a negative predictive value of 98.1 % (415/423, CI95% 0.96-0.99). Theoretical management using the score would have spared surgery in 229 patients (87.1 %, 229/263) with benign lesions and malignancy would have been missed in 6 borderline and 2 invasive cases. In patients with a presumed benign mass using O-RADS MRI score, recommending surgery for lesions >= 100 mm would miss only 4/77 (4.8 %) malignant adnexal tumors instead of 8 (50 % decrease). CONCLUSION: The use of O-RADS MRI scoring system could drastically reduce the number of asymptomatic patients undergoing avoidable surgery.

METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS): a quality scoring tool for radiomics research endorsed by EuSoMII.

PURPOSE: To propose a new quality scoring tool, METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS), to assess and improve research quality of radiomics studies. METHODS: We conducted an online modified Delphi study with a group of international experts. It was performed in three consecutive stages: Stage#1, item preparation; Stage#2, panel discussion among EuSoMII Auditing Group members to identify the items to be voted; and Stage#3, four rounds of the modified Delphi exercise by panelists to determine the items eligible for the METRICS and their weights. The consensus threshold was 75%. Based on the median ranks derived from expert panel opinion and their rank-sum based conversion to importance scores, the category and item weights were calculated. RESULT: In total, 59 panelists from 19 countries participated in selection and ranking of the items and categories. Final METRICS tool included 30 items within 9 categories. According to their weights, the categories were in descending order of importance: study design, imaging data, image processing and feature extraction, metrics and comparison, testing, feature processing, preparation for modeling, segmentation, and open science. A web application and a repository were developed to streamline the calculation of the METRICS score and to collect feedback from the radiomics community. CONCLUSION: In this work, we developed a scoring tool for assessing the methodological quality of the radiomics research, with a large international panel and a modified Delphi protocol. With its conditional format to cover methodological variations, it provides a well-constructed framework for the key methodological concepts to assess the quality of radiomic research papers. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: A quality assessment tool, METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS), is made available by a large group of international domain experts, with transparent methodology, aiming at evaluating and improving research quality in radiomics and machine learning. KEY POINTS: • A methodological scoring tool, METRICS, was developed for assessing the quality of radiomics research, with a large international expert panel and a modified Delphi protocol. • The proposed scoring tool presents expert opinion-based importance weights of categories and items with a transparent methodology for the first time. • METRICS accounts for varying use cases, from handcrafted radiomics to entirely deep learning-based pipelines. • A web application has been developed to help with the calculation of the METRICS score ( https://metricsscore.github.io/metrics/METRICS.html ) and a repository created to collect feedback from the radiomics community ( https://github.com/metricsscore/metrics ).

A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: To present the results of a survey on the assessment of treatment response with imaging in oncologic patient, in routine clinical practice. The survey was promoted by the European Society of Oncologic Imaging to gather information for the development of reporting models and recommendations. METHODS: The survey was launched on the European Society of Oncologic Imaging website and was available for 3 weeks. It consisted of 5 sections, including 24 questions related to the following topics: demographic and professional information, methods for lesion measurement, how to deal with diminutive lesions, how to report baseline and follow-up examinations, which previous studies should be used for comparison, and role of RECIST 1.1 criteria in the daily clinical practice. RESULTS: A total of 286 responses were received. Most responders followed the RECIST 1.1 recommendations for the measurement of target lesions and lymph nodes and for the assessment of tumor response. To assess response, 48.6% used previous and/or best response study in addition to baseline, 25.2% included the evaluation of all main time points, and 35% used as the reference only the previous study. A considerable number of responders used RECIST 1.1 criteria in daily clinical practice (41.6%) or thought that they should be always applied (60.8%). CONCLUSION: Since standardized criteria are mainly a prerogative of clinical trials, in daily routine, reporting strategies are left to radiologists and oncologists, which may issue local and diversified recommendations. The survey emphasizes the need for more generally applicable rules for response assessment in clinical practice. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Compared to clinical trials which use specific criteria to evaluate response to oncological treatments, the free narrative report usually adopted in daily clinical practice may lack clarity and useful information, and therefore, more structured approaches are needed. KEY POINTS: · Most radiologists consider standardized reporting strategies essential for an objective assessment of tumor response in clinical practice. · Radiologists increasingly rely on RECIST 1.1 in their daily clinical practice. · Treatment response evaluation should require a complete analysis of all imaging time points and not only of the last.