Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

e-Poster Display Session

440P - Blinded independent central review of oncology trials: The monitoring of readers' performance


22 Nov 2020


e-Poster Display Session


Clinical Research

Tumour Site


Hubert Beaumont


Annals of Oncology (2020) 31 (suppl_6): S1407-S1415. 10.1016/annonc/annonc368


H. Beaumont, A. Iannessi, J. Cillario, Y. Liu

Author affiliations

  • Medical Affairs, MEDIAN Technologies, 06560 - valbonne/FR


Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 440P


For image-based evaluations, RECIST 1.1 remains the most used criteria for assessing the therapeutic response in clinical trials. The variabilities of evaluations are generally mitigated by double reading the images, with a third reader adjudicating the discrepancies. Blinded independent central review (BICR) with double read and adjudication is a complex management that needs to be closely monitored. The rate of inter-reader discrepancies is one of those metrics of choice for detecting quality issues in trials. The aim of our study was to provide reference values metrics for the monitoring of RECIST 1.1 BICR with double read plus adjudication in clinical trials.


From the list of clinical trials recorded in the Median Technologies database, we selected a subset of trials according to the following inclusion criteria: 1) Phase II and III 2) Response criteria: RECIST, 3) Trial status: completed, 4) Trial setting: central double read with adjudication, 5) Trial endpoint: Overall Response and PD and 6) Readers monitoring was enabled. For the selected trials, we analyzed, per trial and per readers, the rate of inter-reader discrepancy and the rate of readers’ endorsement by the adjudicator. We compared the discrepancy rate between the indications using Marascuillo test.


Out of the 103 recorded trials, 5 conformed the inclusion criteria. Their indications were: Lung (1), Skin (1) biliary track (1), Gastric (1) and multiple (1) cancers. A total of 1561 patients (mean=312/per trial) and 5986 time points (mean=1197/per trial) were analyzed by 25 readers; 8 adjudicators were involved. Per reader, the discrepancy rate ranged from 27.4% to 68.5% (mean=50.1%) with an endorsement rate ranging from 11.5% to 91.1%. Per trial, the average discrepancy rate was 50.8% [33.0-63.8]. We found a significant difference in the rate of discrepancy per indications: Biliary (63.8%) vs Multiple cancers (33.0%) (p<0.001).


In BICR clinical trials with double reads and adjudication, readers’ monitoring is highly recommended. Monitoring metrics reported a wide range of discrepancy rate and of individual readers performances. Discrepancy rate and readers performances would be indication dependent.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Beaumont Hubert.


Has not received any funding.


H. Beaumont, A. Iannessi, J. Cillario, Y. Liu: Full/Part-time employment: Median Technologies.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.