Does qualitative radiologic assessment of tumor response measure up to traditional quantitative scoring methods?
17034 Background: The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and World Health Organization (WHO) radiologic metrics are the standards for tumor response to therapy. However these methods are difficult to use and are limited in their prediction of clinical outcome. We hypothesize a simpler qualitative assessment of tumor response by CT is as reproducible and predictive of clinical outcome as the RECIST and WHO methods. Methods: This was a retrospective evaluation of 23 patients (11 males, 12 females, mean age 56.1 years, range 40–81 years) with biopsy proven metastatic colo-rectal carcinoma treated at our institution between 2002 and 2006 who did not have their primary tumor resected. Only patients with two consecutive CT examinations separated by at least three weeks were included. Two board certified radiologists, blinded to the other's reads, independently interpreted all CT examinations measuring up to five hepatic lesions on both CT examinations using RECIST and WHO criteria and qualitatively assessing all hepatic metastases, categorizing them as increased, decreased, or unchanged between scans. Clinical outcome, using time to progression of disease (TTP), was measured, utilizing a Cox proportional hazards model, to compare the predictive value of all three scoring systems for those patients starting first line chemotherapy (11 patients) at the time of our analysis. Results: Qualitative assessment resulted in agreement in 21/23 patients (91.3%, kappa = 0.78) classifying hepatic metastases as any increase (2 patients), any decrease (17 patients), or no change (2 patients) between scans compared with agreement in 20/23 patients (87.0%) for RECIST (kappa = 0.62) and WHO ( kappa = 0.67) methods placing patients into partial response (2 patients by RECIST and WHO), stable disease (17 patients by RECIST, 16 patients by WHO), and disease progression (1 patient by RECIST, 2 patients by WHO)categories by accepted criteria. No significant difference in prediction of TTP between methods was found. Conclusions: Our pilot data suggests our qualitative scoring system may be at least as reproducible and predictive of patient clinical outcome as the RECIST and WHO methods. No significant financial relationships to disclose.