Rémy Barbé

Background: Portal venous phase (PVP) contrast-enhanced CT is a cornerstone for response assessment in early-phase oncology trials, yet contrast-enhancement phase timing remains insufficiently monitored across sites. We assessed PVP timing using a validated artificial intelligence (AI) quality control tool (CECT-QC). Methods: In this retrospective multicenter study, 402 CT examinations from 402 patients enrolled in phase I oncology trials across three European institutions were analyzed using CECT-QC, which quantifies aortic and portal venous enhancement to classify contrast-enhancement phase. The primary analysis included 335 standard CT examinations. Optimal PVP classification was compared (i) across institutions, (ii) before vs. after French regulatory changes impacting contrast delivery, and (iii) across scanner technologies (photon-counting CT [PCCT] vs. standard CT). Results: Among the 335 standard CT examinations included in the primary analysis, 53.1% (178/335) were classified by CECT-QC as optimal PVP. Optimal PVP rates were 39.0% (32/82) at Institution A, 56.9% (87/153) at Institution B, and 59.0% (59/100) at Institution C, with a significant adjusted institutional association (p = 0.039). No significant temporal association was observed before versus after the legislative change (p = 0.716). At Institution A, standard CT was associated with higher odds of optimal PVP classification than PCCT (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.07–4.68; p = 0.031), while PCCT showed higher aortic and portal venous attenuation (both p < 0.001). Conclusions: Approximately half of standard CT examinations in phase I oncology trials were classified as optimal PVP. Classification varied significantly across institutions and by scanner technology, whereas no significant temporal association was observed before versus after the legislative change. These findings support continued quality-control monitoring, protocol harmonization, and adaptation of classification tools to emerging CT platforms.

Hallmarks from gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) of bulk RNA sequencing from tissue biopsies of FGFR inhibitor-naïve patients.

Clinical and molecular characteristics of FGFR inhibitor-naïve patients experiencing acquired resistance to lirafugratinib with off-target alterations only.

Clinical and molecular evolution of patient ST2726.

Primary resistance to lirafugratinib in FGFR inhibitor-naïve patients.

Differential impact on intracellular signaling exerted by lirafugratinib and futibatinib in FGFR2::BICC1 Ba/F3 with a kinase domain with no mutations (wild-type, WT), and with M538I or L618F mutations.

In vivo evaluation of lirafugratinib and futibatinib in ST4193 PDX.

Clinical and molecular evolution of patients pretreated with a FGFR inhibitor before undergoing lirafugratinib.

Clinical and molecular evolution of patient ST3549.