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

Giovanni Cappello*, Vittorio Romano, Emanuele Neri, Laure Fournier, Melvin D'Anastasi, Andrea Laghi, Giulia A. Zamboni, Regina G. H. Beets-Tan, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Daniele Regge

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

ObjectivesTo 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsA 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%).ConclusionSince 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 statementCompared 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 center dot Most radiologists consider standardized reporting strategies essential for an objective assessment of tumor response in clinical practice.center dot Radiologists increasingly rely on RECIST 1.1 in their daily clinical practice.center dot Treatment response evaluation should require a complete analysis of all imaging time points and not only of the last.Key points center dot Most radiologists consider standardized reporting strategies essential for an objective assessment of tumor response in clinical practice.center dot Radiologists increasingly rely on RECIST 1.1 in their daily clinical practice.center dot Treatment response evaluation should require a complete analysis of all imaging time points and not only of the last.Key points center dot Most radiologists consider standardized reporting strategies essential for an objective assessment of tumor response in clinical practice.center dot Radiologists increasingly rely on RECIST 1.1 in their daily clinical practice.center dot Treatment response evaluation should require a complete analysis of all imaging time points and not only of the last.
Original languageEnglish
Article number220
Number of pages9
JournalInsights into Imaging
Volume14
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 20 Dec 2023

Keywords

  • Tumor assessment
  • Radiology reports
  • Standardization
  • RECIST 1.1
  • Clinical practice
  • COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY
  • EVALUATION CRITERIA
  • TUMOR RESPONSE
  • SOLID TUMORS
  • RECIST
  • LYMPHOMA
  • GUIDELINES
  • WORKFLOW

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this