Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Reproducibility of tumor response evaluation in patients with high-grade malignant non-hodgkin’s lymphoma

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Medical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Estimation of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) in patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) is associated with a number of potential sources of error. The aim of this study was to define the reproducibility of response evaluation performed by an independent review committee (RC).

In a phase III study of patients >60 yr with aggressive NHL, 60 patients who were already evaluated by the independent review committee (RC 1) for response were randomized to three groups and re-evaluated (RC 2). The assessment was classified into one of seven mutually exclusive categories, where the important borderlines with regard to one of the major end-points of the study, the CR rate, were between CR, “CR uncertain” (CRU), and PR. A discrepancy between RC 1 and 2 was found in 8/60 patients (13.3%), influencing the CR/CRU status in four of these patients. Two CR and two PR patients were reclassified as CRU. Thus, CR/CRU was changed in 4/60 (6.7%). The reports of the local investigators were compared with that of RC 1 in 254 patients. The CR/CRU status was affected in 41 of these patients (16.1%). It is concluded that an independent RC is a major prerequisite for a uniform response evaluation in phase III clinical trials. However, the good RC reproducibility does not motivate a second assessment. Moreover, in the phase III setting end-points other than the CR rate, such as time to treatment failure, cause specific and overall survival are preferred.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dixon, D.O. et al. (1987). Reporting outcomes in Hodgkin’s disease and lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 5:1670–1672.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Miller, A.B., Hoogstraten, B., Staquet, M., and Winkler A. (1981). Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47:207–214.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Oken M. (1982). et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 5:649–655.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cheson B.D. et al. (1999). Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. J Clin Oncol 17:1244–1253.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Thiesse, P. et al. (1997). for the Groupe Francais d’Immunotherapie of the Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer. Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for interobserver variability. J Clin Oncol 15:3507–3514.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Stansfeld, A.G. et al. (1988). Updated Kiel classification for lymphomas. Lancet 6:292–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Celsing, F. et al. (1998). Addition of etoposide to CHOP chemotherapy in untreated patients with high-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol 9:1213–1217.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Björkholm, M. et al. (1999). Randomized trial of r-metHu granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) as adjunct to CHOP or CNOP treatment of elderly patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Blood 94 (Suppl 1): 599a (abstract 2665).

  9. World Health Organisation. WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. WHO Offset Publication No. 48. World Health Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lister, T.A. et al. (1989). Report of committee convened to discuss the evaluation and staging of patients with Hodgkin’s disease: Cotswolds Meeting. J Clin Oncol 7:1630–1636.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Moertel, C.G., Hanley, J.A. (1976). The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer 38:388–394.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hopper, K.D. et al. (1996). Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. Am J Roentgenol 167:851–854.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. American Society of Clinical Oncology. (1996). Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelines. J Clin Oncol 14:671–679.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fletcher, B.D., Glicksman, A.S., Gieser, P. (1999). Interobserver variability in the detection of cervical-thoracic Hodgkin’s disease by computed tomography. J Clin Oncol 17:2153–2159.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Magnus Björkholm.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ösby, E., Taube, A., Cavallin-Ståhl, E. et al. Reproducibility of tumor response evaluation in patients with high-grade malignant non-hodgkin’s lymphoma. Med Oncol 18, 137–140 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1385/MO:18:2:137

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1385/MO:18:2:137

Key Words

Navigation