Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Research Article
12 March 2026

A novel real-world data methodology for lymphoma outcome classification: the real-world Lugano study

Authors: Richard Scott Swain https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7578-2620, Andrew Klink https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3765-0448, Parisa Asgarisabet https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1309-4723, Kristin M Zimmerman Savill https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3442-7320, Bindu Kalesan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6543-2774, Alexandrina Balanean https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5540-0755, Harlen Hays, … Show All … , Jill Kaufman, Lindsay McAllister https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3991-9668, Courtney Omary https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4612-3562, Hsing-Ting Yu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8546-1505, JaLyna Laney https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9139-0597, Nicholas C Richardson https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9378-9909, Catherine C Lerro https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1674-3822, Fatima Rizvi, Jonathon Vallejo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9700-4037, Kun Wang, Marc R Theoret, Donna R Rivera https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4565-4556, and Bruce A Feinberg https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9267-9994 [email protected]Author Info & Affiliations
Volume 15, Number 4
https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2025-0134
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: In oncology trials, blinded independent central review (BICR) is the standard for treatment response classification. Real-world data methodologies that align with BICR may reduce misclassification in real-world evidence (RWE) studies and enhance reproducibility, increasing value of RWE. We aimed to develop and validate a novel real-world data-based methodology – real-world Lugano (rwLugano) – for assessing lymphoma response to align with clinical trials. Materials & methods: We conducted a retrospective, multisite chart abstraction study using Cardinal Health Practice Research Network (PRN) sites to identify adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma initiating first-line (1L) therapy from 1 January 2015, through 31 December 2022, in US community oncology. Sites collected patient characteristics and PET/CT scans at baseline and first response. Two radiologists independently classified responses; a medical oncologist adjudicated discordances. Results: We compared initial treatment responses using three methods: physician-charted from electronic health records, rwLugano-derived per Lugano 2014 and BICR-adjudicated per Lugano 2014. Agreement was assessed via percentage concordance, kappa (κ), and multivariable generalized linear mixed modeling for assigning complete response (CR). Among 178 patients, CR rates were 63.5% (physician-charted), 81.5% (rwLugano) and 83.1% (BICR). Compared with BICR, rwLugano showed higher agreement (87.9%, κ = 0.52) than physician-charted (77.0%, κ = 0.40). The generalized linear mixed modeling analyses identified clinical factors associated with concordance: for physician charted assessments, greater numbers of extranodal sites increased agreement with BICR (OR 1.92), while MYC mutation (OR 0.38) and anemia (OR 0.37) reduced agreement. For rwLugano, nonprivate insurance was associated with higher agreement (odds ratio [OR]: 4.40), whereas MYC mutation reduced agreement (OR: 0.26). Conclusion: rwLugano improves real-world lymphoma response classification, aligning with BICR and supporting more accurate, reproducible RWE for clinical and regulatory decision-making. Using methods BICR and rwLugano may provide opportunities to minimize outcome misclassification and improve comparability of clinical trial and clinical practice approaches.

Plain language summary

What is this article about?

In real-world lymphoma research, can a novel treatment response classification be leveraged to closely emulate assessment methods used in a clinical trial?

What were the results?

Compared with blinded independent central review (BICR)-adjudicated complete response (CR) in patients with aggressive lymphoma, physician-charted assessment underestimated CR, whereas classification via the novel real-world Lugano (rwLugano) method was similar to BICR. Initial CR was lower for physician-charted (63.5%) versus rwLugano-derived (81.5%) and BICR-adjudicated (83.1%) methods – the latter 2 may minimize end point misclassification and improve comparability with clinical trials.

What do the results mean?

The novel rwLugano approach has potential to classify treatment outcomes consistent with those resulting from clinical trial approaches.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary materials.pdf)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Real-world evidence (2024). Accessed: 22 November 2024. https://www.fda.gov/science-research/science-and-research-special-topics/real-world-evidence
Google Scholar
2.
United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Focus area: use of real-world evidence to support biologic, device, and drug development and regulatory decision-making (2022). Accessed: 22 November 2024. . https://www.fda.gov/science-research/focus-areas-regulatory-science-report/focus-area-use-real-world-evidence-support-biologic-device-and-drug-development-and-regulatory
Google Scholar
• Real-world data, which are collected from electronic medical records, claim sand digital health tools, generate real-world evidence (RWE) that informs how medical products perform in everyday care; RWE is increasingly used by regulators to support approvals, label update sand post-market evaluations.
3.
United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics (2018). Accessed: 7 January 2025. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/clinical-trial-endpoints-approval-cancer-drugs-and-biologics
Google Scholar
4.
United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Accelerated approval – expedited program for serious conditions (2024). Accessed: 7 January 2025. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/accelerated-approval-expedited-program-serious-conditions
Google Scholar
5.
Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J. Clin. Oncol. 32(27), 3059–3068 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• At the 11th and 12th International Conferences on Malignant Lymphoma, expert panels revised staging and response criteria, formally incorporating FDG PET-CT into standard evaluation for FDG-avid lymphomas. Key updates included eliminating routine bone marrow biopsy for Hodgkin and most diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) cases, refining disease classification and discouraging surveillance scans to improve consistency and comparability in clinical trial outcomes.
6.
Meignan M, Gallamini A, Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C. Report on the first international workshop on interim-PET-scan in lymphoma. Leuk. Lymphoma 50(8), 1257–1260 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
Yasenchak CA, Liu N, Beeks A et al. Real-world use of positron emission tomography-computed tomography and reported Deauville scores in advanced-stage classic Hodgkin lymphoma: a community oncology practice perspective. JCO Oncol. Pract. 19, 860–870 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Evaluates interim PET-CT scan use and Deauville 5-point scale (5PS) reporting in stage III/IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with frontline regimens in US community oncology settings. Findings revealed frequent under-reporting of Deauville scores, with standardized uptake values (SUVs) often used instead, highlighting a need for improved consistency in PET-adapted treatment assessment.
8.
Berger VW, Bour LJ, Carter K et al. A roadmap to using randomization in clinical trials. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 21(1), 168 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Azoulay L. Rationale, strengths, and limitations of real-world evidence in oncology: a Canadian review and perspective. Oncologist. 27(9), e731–e738 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
Swain RS, Zimmerman Savill KM, Klink A et al. A novel methodology for assessing response to lymphoma treatment in real-world studies – the real-world LuGAno (rwLUGANO) study. Presented at: ISPOR 2024, GA, USA (5–8 May 2024).
Google Scholar
12.
Rezaee A, Schöder H, Raderer M, Langsteger W, Beheshti M. Chapter 8 – Lymphoma. In: PET/CT in cancer: an interdisciplinary approach to individualized imaging. Beheshti M, Langsteger W, Rezaee A. (Eds). Elsevier, 149–168 (2018).
Google Scholar
13.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening of the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61(4), 344–349 (2008).
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.
Izano MA, Tran N, Fu A et al. Implementing real-world RECIST-based tumor response assessment in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Clin. Lung Cancer 23(3), 191–194 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
15.
Ma X, Bellomo L, Hooley I et al. Concordance of clinician-documented and imaging response in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer treated with first-line therapy. JAMA Netw. Open. 5(5), e229655 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Demonstrates that assessing solid tumor response using electronic health record (EHR) documentation is feasible when paired with a modified RECIST 1.1 and centralized imaging review. Concordance between clinician-assessed and independently reviewed RECIST-based responses was moderate, supporting the potential for EHR-derived response metrics in real-world oncology research.
16.
Griffith SD, Tucker M, Bowser B et al. Generating real-world tumor burden endpoints from electronic health record data: comparison of RECIST, radiology-anchored, and clinician-anchored approaches for abstracting real-world progression in non-small cell lung cancer. Adv. Ther. 36(8), 2122–2136 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Assessed the feasibility of using RECIST-based and alternative methods to identify real-world progression from EHR data in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Although RECIST-based assessment was limited by missing data, a clinician-anchored approach supported by radiology reports proved to be the most practical and reliable for capturing tumor progression in real-world settings.
17.
Feinberg BA, Zettler ME, Klink AJ, Lee CH, Gajra A, Kish JK. Comparison of solid tumor treatment response observed in clinical practice with response reported in clinical trials. JAMA Netw Open. 4(2), e2036741 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
Di Maio M, Perrone F, Conte P. Real-world evidence in oncology: opportunities and limitations. Oncologist 25(5), e746–e752 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy, but RWE is increasingly used to address clinical and policy questions that RCTs cannot fully answer. Although RWE offers valuable insights from routine oncology practice, its use requires careful consideration of data limitations to avoid misinterpretation and ensure safe, effective application.
|