Background Clinical oncological studies attempt to improve precision of data by central radiological assessments. However, it is unclear, to which extent local and central assessments diverge. Purpose To quantify inter-reader variability and the deviation of local from central radiological assessments of computed tomography (CT) scans. Material and Methods This was a sub-study of a randomized clinical phase IIb trial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), comparing first-line sorafenib with interferon-alpha-2a (IFN-α-2a). It analyzed agreements of local with central RECIST CT assessments by Cohen's kappa (κ), symmetry tests, deviations in waterfall plots, Bland-Altman plots, and parametric survival analyses. Results The concordance between local and central radiologic review was quantified by κ = 0.53. While local assessment yielded progressive disease (PD) in 18.6%, central assessment classified 22.5% of patient time points as PD exhibiting only a partial overlap with the 18.6% The tumor shrinkage rates in waterfall plots were 68.1% in local and 55.8% in central review (57.8% and 59% by Reader 1 and Reader 2). Bland-Altman plots identified a systematic shift of tumor change rates by -7.5% in local compared to central assessments, that may reflect a systematic tendency of more favorable results in local assessments. The discordance between local and central review was reflected by a time to progression (TTP) hazard ratio (HR) of 1.73 ( P = 0.0003). Conclusion These data suggest that central radiologic review may reduce technical measurement variability in clinical trials, which should be scrutinized in future studies compared to a volumetric reference.
Keywords: RECIST; concordance rate; discordance rate.