Dataset Information

Tumor Response Evaluation Using iRECIST: Feasibility and Reliability of Manual Versus Software-Assisted Assessments.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare the feasibility and reliability of manual versus software-assisted assessments of computed tomography scans according to iRECIST in patients undergoing immune-based cancer treatment.

Methods

Computed tomography scans of 30 tumor patients undergoing cancer treatment were evaluated by four independent radiologists at baseline (BL) and two follow-ups (FU), resulting in a total of 360 tumor assessments (120 each at BL/FU1/FU2). After image interpretation, tumor burden and response status were either calculated manually or semi-automatically as defined by software, respectively. The reading time, calculated sum of longest diameter (SLD), and tumor response (e.g., "iStable Disease") were determined for each assessment. After complete data collection, a consensus reading among the four readers was performed to establish a reference standard for the correct response assignments. The reading times, error rates, and inter-reader agreement on SLDs were statistically compared between the manual versus software-assisted approaches.

Results

The reading time was significantly longer for the manual versus software-assisted assessments at both follow-ups (median [interquartile range] FU1: 4.00 min [2.17 min] vs. 2.50 min [1.00 min]; FU2: 3.75 min [1.88 min] vs. 2.00 min [1.50 min]; both p < 0.001). Regarding reliability, 2.5% of all the response assessments were incorrect at FU1 (3.3% manual; 0% software-assisted), which increased to 5.8% at FU2 (10% manual; 1.7% software-assisted), demonstrating higher error rates for manual readings. Quantitative SLD inter-reader agreement was inferior for the manual compared to the software-assisted assessments at both FUs (FU1: ICC = 0.91 vs. 0.93; FU2: ICC = 0.75 vs. 0.86).

Conclusions

Software-assisted assessments may facilitate the iRECIST response evaluation of cancer patients in clinical routine by decreasing the reading time and reducing response misclassifications.

SUBMITTER: Ristow I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10931003 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Tumor Response Evaluation Using iRECIST: Feasibility and Reliability of Manual Versus Software-Assisted Assessments.

Ristow Inka I Well Lennart L Wiese Nis Jesper NJ Warncke Malte M Tintelnot Joseph J Karimzadeh Amir A Koehler Daniel D Adam Gerhard G Bannas Peter P Sauer Markus M

Cancers 20240229 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the feasibility and reliability of manual versus software-assisted assessments of computed tomography scans according to iRECIST in patients undergoing immune-based cancer treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>Computed tomography scans of 30 tumor patients undergoing cancer treatment were evaluated by four independent radiologists at baseline (BL) and two follow-ups (FU), resulting in a total of 360 tumor assessments (120 each at BL/FU1/FU2). After image interpretation, tumor b ...[more]

PMID: 38473353

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of robot-assisted surgery remains contentious due to the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to elevate the level of evidence. We aimed to evaluate the postoperative radiographic outcomes of robot-assisted (RAS-THA) versus manual (M-THA) total hip arthroplasty.MethodsThis multicenter RCT was performed from March 1, 2021 to December 1, 2021. Patients were randomly assigned to routine M-THA or to RAS-THA that used the TRex-RS orthopedic joint surgical navigation system. The primary outcome was to compare the acetabular component orientation, femoral stem alignment, femoral canal fill ratio, and leg length discrepancy between RAS-THA and M-THA using postoperative radiography. Subgroup analyses of the two groups stratified by surgical approach, gender, and BMI were also conducted.ResultsSeventy-three participants were randomly allocated to the RAS-THA group, while seventy-two participants were assigned to the M-THA group. Compared to the M-THA group, the RAS-THA group exhibited less variability in the preoperative planning of the vertical center of rotation (VCOR; P < 0.001), demonstrated a significant advantage in femoral stem alignment (P = 0.004), and showed pronounced decreases in inequality and in the variability in leg length discrepancy (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the Lewinnek safe-zone ratio (P = 0.081) and the femoral canal fill ratio (P > 0.05) between the two groups. Further subgroup analysis also showed that the RAS-THA group had fewer horizontal center of rotation (HCOR) and leg length differences when stratified by surgical approach, gender, and overweight status.ConclusionThis RCT found that, regardless of the surgical approach, gender, or body mass index, RAS-THA can effectively improve the postoperative VCOR and significantly reduce the variability of leg length difference. RAS-THA should be considered an effective method to enhance surgical precision by achieving less variability in challenging patients with leg length discrepancies.Trial registrationChiCTR2100044124.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the accuracy, inter- and intrarater reliability, and user-experience of manual and semi-automatic preoperative leg-alignment measurement planning software for high tibial osteotomy (HTO).MethodsThirty patients (31 lower limbs) who underwent a medial opening wedge HTO between 2017 and 2019 were retrospectively included. The mechanical lateral distal femur angle (mLDFA), mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA), and planned correction angle were measured on preoperative long-leg full weight-bearing radiographs utilising PACS Jivex Review® v5.2 manual and TraumaCad® v2.4 semi-automatic planning software. Independent measurements were performed by four raters. Two raters repeated the measurements. Accuracy in the standard error of measurement (SEM), inter- and intrarater reliability, and user-experience were analysed. Additionally, measurements errors of more than 3° were remeasured and reanalysed.ResultsThe SEMs of all measured varus malalignment angles and planned correction angle were within 0.8° of accuracy for both software programs. Measurements utilising the manual software demonstrated moderate interrater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)-values for the mLDFA and mMPTA, and an excellent interrater ICC-value for the correction angle (0.810, 0.779, and 0.981, respectively). Measurements utilising the semi-automatic software indicated excellent interrater ICC-values for the mLDFA, mMPTA, and correction angle (0.980, 0.909, and 0.989, respectively). The intrarater reliability varied substantially per angle, presenting excellent intrarater agreements by both raters (ICC > 0.900) for the correction angle in each software program as well as poor-to-excellent ICC-values for the mLDFA (0.282-0.951 and 0.316-0.926) and mMPTA (0.893-0.934 and 0.594-0.941) in both the manual planning and semi-automatic software. Regarding user-experience, semi-automatic software was preferred by two raters, while the other two raters had no distinctive preference. After remeasurement of five outliers, excellent interrater ICC-values were found for the mLDFA (0.913) and mMPTA (0.957).ConclusionsSemi-automatic software outperforms the manual software when user-experience and outliers are considered. However, both software programs provide similar performance after remeasurement of the human-related erroneous outliers. For clinical practice, both programs can be utilised for HTO planning.Level of evidenceDiagnostic study, Level III.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the relative effectiveness of Verion-LenSx guided femtosecond arcuate incisions and manual incisions in reducing postoperative refractive astigmatism.Patients and methodsThis was a contralateral eye, prospective study that included subjects with 0.50 D to 1.75 D of corneal astigmatism who wanted less refractive astigmatism post cataract surgery. The surgeon used anterior keratometry and the Woodcock astigmatism nomogram for preoperative planning, while the LenSx femtosecond laser with the Verion Image Guided System was used to create all laser arcuate incisions. Manual incisions were planned using the Donnenfeld nomogram and made with a fixed-depth diamond knife. The primary outcome measure was the residual refractive astigmatism at 3 months postoperative. Secondary outcome measures included the manifest refraction, uncorrected distance visual acuity and the change in corneal astigmatism from 1 to 3 months postoperative.ResultsForty-one subjects were successfully enrolled in the study, with data from 38 subjects available at 3 months. There were no statistically significant differences in refractive astigmatism, corneal astigmatism, uncorrected distance visual acuity or manifest refraction between the Manual and Femto groups at either 1 month or 3 months. Significant changes in refractive and corneal astigmatism were noted between 1 months and 3 months. Ninety percent of eyes in both groups had ≤0.50 D of refractive astigmatism at 3 months. Two minor non-serious adverse events (full-thickness incisions of the cornea) occurred in two eyes of two different subjects in the Manual group; they were resolved without incident.ConclusionLaser arcuate incisions appear to be an effective means of reducing postoperative refractive astigmatism at the time of cataract surgery. No significant clinical differences were observed between incisions made manually and those made with an image-guided femto-second laser system. The lower number of minor adverse events experienced with the femtosecond laser system is an apparent advantage.

Project description:BackgroundWhile the burgeoning researcher and practitioner interest in physical literacy has stimulated new assessment approaches, the optimal tool for assessment among school-aged children remains unclear.ObjectiveThe purpose of this review was to: (i) identify assessment instruments designed to measure physical literacy in school-aged children; (ii) map instruments to a holistic construct of physical literacy (as specified by the Australian Physical Literacy Framework); (iii) document the validity and reliability for these instruments; and (iv) assess the feasibility of these instruments for use in school environments.DesignThis systematic review (registered with PROSPERO on 21 August, 2022) was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement.Data sourcesReviews of physical literacy assessments in the past 5 years (2017 +) were initially used to identify relevant assessments. Following that, a search (20 July, 2022) in six databases (CINAHL, ERIC, GlobalHealth, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus) was conducted for assessments that were missed/or published since publication of the reviews. Each step of screening involved evaluation from two authors, with any issues resolved through discussion with a third author. Nine instruments were identified from eight reviews. The database search identified 375 potential papers of which 67 full text papers were screened, resulting in 39 papers relevant to a physical literacy assessment.Inclusion and exclusion criteriaInstruments were classified against the Australian Physical Literacy Framework and needed to have assessed at least three of the Australian Physical Literacy Framework domains (i.e., psychological, social, cognitive, and/or physical).AnalysesInstruments were assessed for five aspects of validity (test content, response processes, internal structure, relations with other variables, and the consequences of testing). Feasibility in schools was documented according to time, space, equipment, training, and qualifications.ResultsAssessments with more validity/reliability evidence, according to age, were as follows: for children, the Physical Literacy in Children Questionnaire (PL-C Quest) and Passport for Life (PFL). For older children and adolescents, the Canadian Assessment for Physical Literacy (CAPL version 2). For adolescents, the Adolescent Physical Literacy Questionnaire (APLQ) and Portuguese Physical Literacy Assessment Questionnaire (PPLA-Q). Survey-based instruments were appraised to be the most feasible to administer in schools.ConclusionsThis review identified optimal physical literacy assessments for children and adolescents based on current validity and reliability data. Instrument validity for specific populations was a clear gap, particularly for children with disability. While survey-based instruments were deemed the most feasible for use in schools, a comprehensive assessment may arguably require objective measures for elements in the physical domain. If a physical literacy assessment in schools is to be performed by teachers, this may require linking physical literacy to the curriculum and developing teachers' skills to develop and assess children's physical literacy.

Dataset Information

Tumor Response Evaluation Using iRECIST: Feasibility and Reliability of Manual Versus Software-Assisted Assessments.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Tumor Response Evaluation Using iRECIST: Feasibility and Reliability of Manual Versus Software-Assisted Assessments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets