Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 23, 2026
Robot-assisted Total Mesorectal Excision and Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Locally Advanced Middle-low Rectal Cancer
Published on: February 12, 2022
Independent radiologic review in metastatic colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis
João Paulo da Silveira Nogueira Lima1, Fabiano Hahn de Souza, Diocésio Alves Pinto de Andrade
1Department of Medical Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil. jpsnlima@yahoo.com.br
Purpose:
To perform a meta-analysis addressing evaluation bias in local radiologic assessment (LRA) of lesions when compared with independent radiologic review (IRR) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).
Materials And Methods:
MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Library, and Web sites for major medical meetings were searched for RCTs of chemotherapy for metastatic CRC that reported response evaluation by both LRA and IRR. The risk ratios (RRs) of response in the experimental (RR(exp)) and control (RR(cont)) arms were calculated (response rate in LRA divided by response rate in IRR) for each selected study. The ratio of RR of response was calculated (RR of response of LRA divided by RR of response of IRR). The random-effects model was applied. Meta-regression was used to examine the effect of study characteristics on outcomes.
Results:
LRA and IRR results were concordant (13 studies; 7742 patients; ratio of RR of response = 0.97; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.90, 1.04; P = .35). However, LRA overestimated tumor response independently of therapy allocation (interaction test, P = .81) both in control (RR(cont), 1.163; 95% CI: 1.086, 1.246; P < .001) and experimental (RR(exp), 1.156; 95% CI: 1.093, 1.222; P < .001) therapies. Meta-regression did not show any effect of trial characteristics on effects.
Conclusion:
LRA yields higher response rates in RCTs testing chemotherapy for metastatic CRC, although there was no sign of bias toward experimental therapy. The need for IRR to control evaluation bias must be reappraised.
