Prospective validation of a new imaging scorecard to assess leptomeningeal metastasis: A joint EORTC BTG and RANO effort.
MRI
brain
feasibility
response
validation
Journal
Neuro-oncology
ISSN: 1523-5866
Titre abrégé: Neuro Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100887420
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 10 2022
03 10 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
15
2
2022
medline:
5
10
2022
entrez:
14
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Validation of the 2016 RANO MRI scorecard for leptomeningeal metastasis failed for multiple reasons. Accordingly, this joint EORTC Brain Tumor Group and RANO effort sought to prospectively validate a revised MRI scorecard for response assessment in leptomeningeal metastasis. Coded paired cerebrospinal MRI of 20 patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid cancers at baseline and follow-up after treatment and instructions for assessment were provided via the EORTC imaging platform. The Kappa coefficient was used to evaluate the interobserver pairwise agreement. Thirty-five raters participated, including 9 neuroradiologists, 17 neurologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 3 neurosurgeons, and 2 medical oncologists. Among single leptomeningeal metastases-related imaging findings at baseline, the best median concordance was noted for hydrocephalus (Kappa = 0.63), and the worst median concordance for spinal linear enhancing disease (Kappa = 0.46). The median concordance of raters for the overall response assessment was moderate (Kappa = 0.44). Notably, the interobserver agreement for the presence of parenchymal brain metastases at baseline was fair (Kappa = 0.29) and virtually absent for their response to treatment. 394 of 700 ratings (20 patients x 35 raters, 56%) were fully completed. In 308 of 394 fully completed ratings (78%), the overall response assessment perfectly matched the summary interpretation of the single ratings as proposed in the scorecard instructions. This study confirms the principle utility of the new scorecard, but also indicates the need for training of MRI assessment with a dedicated reviewer panel in clinical trials. Electronic case report forms with "blocking options" may be required to enforce completeness and quality of scoring.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Validation of the 2016 RANO MRI scorecard for leptomeningeal metastasis failed for multiple reasons. Accordingly, this joint EORTC Brain Tumor Group and RANO effort sought to prospectively validate a revised MRI scorecard for response assessment in leptomeningeal metastasis.
METHODS
Coded paired cerebrospinal MRI of 20 patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid cancers at baseline and follow-up after treatment and instructions for assessment were provided via the EORTC imaging platform. The Kappa coefficient was used to evaluate the interobserver pairwise agreement.
RESULTS
Thirty-five raters participated, including 9 neuroradiologists, 17 neurologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 3 neurosurgeons, and 2 medical oncologists. Among single leptomeningeal metastases-related imaging findings at baseline, the best median concordance was noted for hydrocephalus (Kappa = 0.63), and the worst median concordance for spinal linear enhancing disease (Kappa = 0.46). The median concordance of raters for the overall response assessment was moderate (Kappa = 0.44). Notably, the interobserver agreement for the presence of parenchymal brain metastases at baseline was fair (Kappa = 0.29) and virtually absent for their response to treatment. 394 of 700 ratings (20 patients x 35 raters, 56%) were fully completed. In 308 of 394 fully completed ratings (78%), the overall response assessment perfectly matched the summary interpretation of the single ratings as proposed in the scorecard instructions.
CONCLUSION
This study confirms the principle utility of the new scorecard, but also indicates the need for training of MRI assessment with a dedicated reviewer panel in clinical trials. Electronic case report forms with "blocking options" may be required to enforce completeness and quality of scoring.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35157772
pii: 6528471
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noac043
pmc: PMC9527515
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1726-1735Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Radiology. 2016 Dec;281(3):907-918
pubmed: 27636026
Neuro Oncol. 2015 Sep;17(9):1188-98
pubmed: 26250565
Neuro Oncol. 2020 Jun 9;22(6):757-772
pubmed: 32048719
Neuro Oncol. 2014 Sep;16(9):1176-85
pubmed: 24867803
Neuro Oncol. 2020 May 15;22(5):675-683
pubmed: 32352148
Neuro Oncol. 2021 Jul 1;23(7):1100-1112
pubmed: 33367859
Neuro Oncol. 2019 May 6;21(5):648-658
pubmed: 30715514
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Oct;95:28-32
pubmed: 28987681
Lancet Oncol. 2018 May;19(5):672-681
pubmed: 29602646
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 10;38(23):2610-2619
pubmed: 32468955
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Apr 1;19(4):484-492
pubmed: 28039364
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;28(suppl_4):iv84-iv99
pubmed: 28881917
J Neuroimaging. 2021 Mar;31(2):324-333
pubmed: 33332686
Lung Cancer. 2019 Feb;128:105-112
pubmed: 30642441
N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 23;379(8):722-730
pubmed: 30134131