A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice
Abstract 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 recom...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SpringerOpen
2023-12-01
|
| Series: | Insights into Imaging |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01568-6 |
| _version_ | 1827399450083983360 |
|---|---|
| author | 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 |
| author_facet | 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 |
| author_sort | Giovanni Cappello |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract 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. Graphical Abstract |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T19:46:09Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-2844cf33f397411e95a366d1d8b06520 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1869-4101 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T19:46:09Z |
| publishDate | 2023-12-01 |
| publisher | SpringerOpen |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Insights into Imaging |
| spelling | doaj.art-2844cf33f397411e95a366d1d8b065202023-12-24T12:20:52ZengSpringerOpenInsights into Imaging1869-41012023-12-011411910.1186/s13244-023-01568-6A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practiceGiovanni Cappello0Vittorio Romano1Emanuele Neri2Laure Fournier3Melvin D’Anastasi4Andrea Laghi5Giulia A. Zamboni6Regina G. H. Beets-Tan7Heinz-Peter Schlemmer8Daniele Regge9Radiology Unit, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Str. Prov.le 142 km 3.95, 10060Radiology Unit, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Str. Prov.le 142 km 3.95, 10060Department of Translational Research, Academic Radiology, University of PisaRadiology Department, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, AP-HP, Université de ParisMedical Imaging Department, Mater Dei Hospital, University of MaltaDepartment of Medical Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Sant’Andrea University HospitalDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, Institute of Radiology, University of Verona, Policlinico GB RossiDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer InstituteDepartment of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)Radiology Unit, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Str. Prov.le 142 km 3.95, 10060Abstract 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. Graphical Abstracthttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01568-6Tumor assessmentRadiology reportsStandardizationRECIST 1.1Clinical practice |
| spellingShingle | 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 A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice Insights into Imaging Tumor assessment Radiology reports Standardization RECIST 1.1 Clinical practice |
| title | A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice |
| title_full | A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice |
| title_fullStr | A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice |
| title_full_unstemmed | A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice |
| title_short | A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice |
| title_sort | european society of oncologic imaging esoi survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice |
| topic | Tumor assessment Radiology reports Standardization RECIST 1.1 Clinical practice |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01568-6 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT giovannicappello aeuropeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT vittorioromano aeuropeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT emanueleneri aeuropeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT laurefournier aeuropeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT melvindanastasi aeuropeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT andrealaghi aeuropeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT giuliaazamboni aeuropeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT reginaghbeetstan aeuropeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT heinzpeterschlemmer aeuropeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT danieleregge aeuropeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT giovannicappello europeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT vittorioromano europeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT emanueleneri europeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT laurefournier europeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT melvindanastasi europeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT andrealaghi europeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT giuliaazamboni europeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT reginaghbeetstan europeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT heinzpeterschlemmer europeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice AT danieleregge europeansocietyofoncologicimagingesoisurveyontheradiologicalassessmentofresponsetooncologictreatmentsinclinicalpractice |