Automated RANO 2.0-Aligned Response Assessment for Glioblastoma Clinical Trials: External Evaluation Against Expert Annotations
- 1Department of Translational Neuroscience and Stroke, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK
- 2School of Medicine, European University Cyprus, 1516 Nicosia, Cyprus
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Reliable and reproducible imaging-response assessment is essential for endpoint evaluation in glioblastoma clinical trials. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria provide a rule-based framework for standardisation, but their implementation can still yield variable outputs between readers and across timepoints and trial sites. This partly reflects differences in lesion definition, measurement geometry, longitudinal tracking, and new-lesion adjudication. We externally evaluated an automated pipeline for auditable, RANO 2.0-aligned imaging-only response assessment using pre-existing segmentation masks. Methods: This retrospective feasibility and pilot evaluation used longitudinal glioblastoma magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies from the public single-centre LUMIERE dataset. Dataset-provided tumour segmentation masks were retained unchanged. An expert neuroradiologist visually reviewed the masks against the corresponding MRI images, and timepoints with segmentations clearly non-representative of tumour tissue were excluded. Deterministic rule-based processing performed lesion definition, admissibility-filtered measurement extraction, longitudinal tracking, new-lesion detection, and provisional response classification. Expert RANO imaging annotations and bidimensional measurements served as comparators rather than complete clinical RANO 2.0 adjudications. Analyses assessed agreement in the sum of products of diameters (SPD), longitudinal burden change, response classification, progression timing, new-lesion agreement, and failure modes, with patient-level clustered bootstrap resampling. Results: Visual segmentation quality control excluded 57 timepoints across 42 patients, leaving 542 evaluable timepoints, including 506 matched to expert annotations. Across 84 expert-measured timepoints from 47 patients, the constrained maximum product of perpendicular diameters (Max-PPD-c) correlated with expert SPD (Pearson r = 0.753; Spearman ρ = 0.861), although the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was 0.680 and the median absolute percentage difference was 36.8%. Overall, 73.8% of measurements were within ±50% of expert SPD. Across 31 consecutive pairs from 17 patients, correlations for longitudinal percentage change were r = 0.715 and ρ = 0.874. Per-timepoint four-class response agreement was 48.1% (κ = 0.173), whereas final-timepoint binary progressive disease (PD) agreement was 76.0%. Among patients with PD by both methods, the pipeline assigned PD earlier more often than later, although the median timing difference was 0.0 weeks and the paired comparison was not statistically significant (p = 0.068). New-lesion detection had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 22.3% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 89.0%. Conservative patient-level later-positivity estimates were 10.8% within 12 weeks and 27.0% within 24 weeks, without same-lesion verification. Conclusions: This study supports the value of a deterministic pipeline for standardising imaging-derived response outputs in glioblastoma clinical trials. Future work will focus on prospective multi-institutional validation incorporating clinical variables, non-enhancing disease assessment, and adjudicated outcomes.
Related
- 197 Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta analysis of early phase clinical trials with GRADE assessment
- Neoplastic and non-neoplastic astrocyte states converge on mesenchymal and injury-response programs during glioblastoma recurrence
- An Orthotopic Xenograft Model for Preclinical Evaluation of CAR T Cell Therapy in Glioblastoma.
- Advanced machine learning strategies for predicting therapy response in preclinical glioblastoma using longitudinal MRI
- Quantitative, longitudinal measurements of response to immunotherapy for glioblastoma using multiparametric MRI in a long-term survivor treated with autologous tumor lysate-loaded dendritic cell vaccine: an illustrative case.
BibTeX
@article{siakallis2026automated,
title = {{Automated RANO 2.0-Aligned Response Assessment for Glioblastoma Clinical Trials: External Evaluation Against Expert Annotations}},
author = {Loizos Siakallis and Sotirios Bisdas},
journal = {Cancers},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/cancers18203383},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/18/20/3383},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Automated RANO 2.0-Aligned Response Assessment for Glioblastoma Clinical Trials: External Evaluation Against Expert Annotations
AU - Loizos Siakallis
AU - Sotirios Bisdas
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - Cancers
DO - 10.3390/cancers18203383
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/18/20/3383
AB - Background/Objectives: Reliable and reproducible imaging-response assessment is essential for endpoint evaluation in glioblastoma clinical trials. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria provide a rule-based framework for standardisation, but their implementation can still yield variable outputs between readers and across timepoints and trial sites. This partly reflects differences in lesion definition, measurement geometry, longitudinal tracking, and new-lesion adjudication. We externally evaluated an automated pipeline for auditable, RANO 2.0-aligned imaging-only response assessment using pre-existing segmentation masks. Methods: This retrospective feasibility and pilot evaluation used longitudinal glioblastoma magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies from the public single-centre LUMIERE dataset. Dataset-provided tumour segmentation masks were retained unchanged. An expert neuroradiologist visually reviewed the masks against the corresponding MRI images, and timepoints with segmentations clearly non-representative of tumour tissue were excluded. Deterministic rule-based processing performed lesion definition, admissibility-filtered measurement extraction, longitudinal tracking, new-lesion detection, and provisional response classification. Expert RANO imaging annotations and bidimensional measurements served as comparators rather than complete clinical RANO 2.0 adjudications. Analyses assessed agreement in the sum of products of diameters (SPD), longitudinal burden change, response classification, progression timing, new-lesion agreement, and failure modes, with patient-level clustered bootstrap resampling. Results: Visual segmentation quality control excluded 57 timepoints across 42 patients, leaving 542 evaluable timepoints, including 506 matched to expert annotations. Across 84 expert-measured timepoints from 47 patients, the constrained maximum product of perpendicular diameters (Max-PPD-c) correlated with expert SPD (Pearson r = 0.753; Spearman ρ = 0.861), although the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was 0.680 and the median absolute percentage difference was 36.8%. Overall, 73.8% of measurements were within ±50% of expert SPD. Across 31 consecutive pairs from 17 patients, correlations for longitudinal percentage change were r = 0.715 and ρ = 0.874. Per-timepoint four-class response agreement was 48.1% (κ = 0.173), whereas final-timepoint binary progressive disease (PD) agreement was 76.0%. Among patients with PD by both methods, the pipeline assigned PD earlier more often than later, although the median timing difference was 0.0 weeks and the paired comparison was not statistically significant (p = 0.068). New-lesion detection had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 22.3% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 89.0%. Conservative patient-level later-positivity estimates were 10.8% within 12 weeks and 27.0% within 24 weeks, without same-lesion verification. Conclusions: This study supports the value of a deterministic pipeline for standardising imaging-derived response outputs in glioblastoma clinical trials. Future work will focus on prospective multi-institutional validation incorporating clinical variables, non-enhancing disease assessment, and adjudicated outcomes.
SN - 2072-6694
ER -