Can we predict discordant RECIST 1.1 evaluations in double read clinical trials?

Abstract

BackgroundIn lung clinical trials with imaging, blinded independent central review with double reads is recommended to reduce evaluation bias and the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumor (RECIST) is still widely used. We retrospectively analyzed the inter-reader discrepancies rate over time, the risk factors for discrepancies related to baseline evaluations, and the potential of machine learning to predict inter-reader discrepancies.Materials and methodsWe retrospectively analyzed five BICR clinical trials for patients on immunotherapy or targeted therapy for lung cancer. Double reads of 1724 patients involving 17 radiologists were performed using RECIST 1.1. We evaluated the rate of discrepancies over time according to four endpoints: progressive disease declared (PDD), date of progressive disease (DOPD), best overall response (BOR), and date of the first response (DOFR). Risk factors associated with discrepancies were analyzed, two predictive models were evaluated.ResultsAt the end of trials, the discrepancy rates between trials were not different. On average, the discrepancy rates were 21.0%, 41.0%, 28.8%, and 48.8% for PDD, DOPD, BOR, and DOFR, respectively. Over time, the discrepancy rate was higher for DOFR than DOPD, and the rates increased as the trial progressed, even after accrual was completed. It was rare for readers to not find any disease, for less than 7% of patients, at least one reader selected non-measurable disease only (NTL). Often the readers selected some of their target lesions (TLs) and NTLs in different organs, with ranges of 36.0-57.9% and 60.5-73.5% of patients, respectively. Rarely (4-8.1%) two readers selected all their TLs in different locations. Significant risk factors were different depending on the endpoint and the trial being considered. Prediction had a poor performance but the positive predictive value was higher than 80%. The best classification was obtained with BOR.ConclusionPredicting discordance rates necessitates having knowledge of patient accrual, patient survival, and the probability of discordances over time. In lung cancer trials, although risk factors for inter-reader discrepancies are known, they are weakly significant, the ability to predict discrepancies from baseline data is limited. To boost prediction accuracy, it would be necessary to enhance baseline-derived features or create new ones, considering other risk factors and looking into optimal reader associations.