Abstract The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) were developed and published in 2000, based on the original World Health Organisation guidelines first published in 1981. In 2009, revisions were made (RECIST 1.1) incorporating major changes, including a reduction in the number of lesions to be assessed, a new measurement method to classify lymph nodes as pathologic or normal, the clarification of the requirement to confirm a complete response or partial response and new methodologies for more appropriate measurement of disease progression. The purpose of this paper was to summarise the questions posed and the clarifications provided as an update to the 2009 publication.
Abstract Radiologic imaging of disease sites plays a pivotal role in the management of patients with cancer. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), introduced in 2000, and modified in 2009, has become the de facto standard for assessment of response in solid tumours in patients on clinical trials. The RECIST Working Group considers the ability of the global oncology community to implement and adopt updates to RECIST in a timely manner to be critical. Updates to RECIST must be tested, validated and implemented in a standardised, methodical manner in response to therapeutic and imaging technology advances as well as experience gained by users. This was the case with the development of RECIST 1.1, where an expanded data warehouse was developed to test and validate modifications. Similar initiatives are ongoing, testing RECIST in the evaluation of response to non-cytotoxic agents, immunotherapies, as well as in specific diseases. The RECIST Working Group has previously outlined the level of evidence considered necessary to formally and fully validate new imaging markers as an appropriate end-point for clinical trials. Achieving the optimal level of evidence desired is a difficult feat for phase III trials; this involves a meta-analysis of multiple prospective, randomised multicentre clinical trials. The rationale for modifications should also be considered; the modifications may be proposed to improve surrogacy, to provide a more mechanistic imaging technique, or be designed to improve reproducibility of the imaging biomarker. Here, we present the commonly described modifications of RECIST, each of which is associated with different levels of evidence and validation.
Abstract Background Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. Highlights of revised RECIST 1.1 Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed : based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of ⩾15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10 mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5 mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes ‘unequivocal progression’ of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance : the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. Future work A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
Traditionally, the most widely used criteria for response assessment in glioblastoma have been Macdonald and the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST). Recently, new criteria addressing contrast enhancement and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR)/T2 hyperintensity have been defined (the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria) to better evaluate the effect of antiangiogenic therapy. Whether FLAIR/T2 imaging could also be helpful to refine RECIST criteria remains unresolved. This study proposed the RECIST + F criteria and compared the 4 methods (Macdonald, RECIST, RANO, and RECIST + F) to determine their agreement in identifying response and progression of recurrent glioblastomas to irinotecan-bevacizumab. Patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with second-line irinotecan-bevacizumab were eligible. Clinical status, corticosteroid dose, and 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional measurements of tumor contrast enhancement and FLAIR hyperintensity were retrospectively assessed. Response and progression were determined according to each set of criteria. Seventy-eight patients were included. Response rates ranged from 34.2% with RECIST + F to 44.7% with Macdonald criteria. Agreement among the 4 methods in determining response and type of progression was high (kappa statistic > 0.75). One-third of patients exhibited nonenhancing progression with stable or improved contrast enhancement. Median progression-free survival was predicted by RECIST, at 13.6 weeks; RECIST + F, 12.3; Macdonald, 12.7; and RANO, 11.7 (P = .840). Intra- and interobserver correlations were high for both contrast enhancement and FLAIR hyperintensity measurements. There was a strong concordance among the different methods in determining response and progression to irinotecan-bevacizumab. Criteria integrating FLAIR hyperintensity tended, however, to reduce response rates and progression-free survival compared with criteria considering only contrast enhancement. The 1-dimensional approach appeared to be as valid as the 2-dimensional approach.
Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) remain an integral part of the assessment of tumour burden in many clinical trials in oncology; these criteria are used to evaluate the activity and efficacy of new cancer therapeutics in solid tumours. We aim to define the purpose of RECIST, and reflect on the level of documentation needed to enable changes for these criteria to develop a new RECIST. Maintaining the applicability of RECIST as a standard evaluation approach is associated with many challenges, in particular with maintaining a balance between the specificity and generalizability, continued validation and innovation, and use of RECIST in early phase versus late-phase drug development, as well as its relevance in clinical trials versus clinical practice. Key questions relate to different modes of actions of new classes of treatments and new imaging modalities; thus, the RECIST Working Group remains committed to maintain RECIST as a standard for the oncology community.
The aim of this study was to compare radiological and pathological changes and test the adjunct efficacy of Sorafenib to Y90 as a bridge to transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). 15 patients with 16 HCC lesions were randomized to Y90 without (Group A, n = 9) or with Sorafenib (Group B, n = 7). Size (WHO, RECIST), enhancement (EASL, mRECIST) and diffusion‐weighted imaging criteria (apparent diffusion coefficient, ADC) measurements were obtained at baseline, then at 1 and every 3 months after treatment until transplantation. Percentage necrosis in explanted tumors was correlated with imaging findings. 100%, 50%‐99% and <50% pathological necrosis was observed in 6 (67%), 1 (11%), and 2 (22%) tumors in Group A and 3 (42%), 2 (28%), and 2 (28%) in Group B, respectively (P = 0.81). While ADC (P = 0.46) did not change after treatment, WHO (P = 0.06) and RECIST (P = 0.08) response at 1 month failed to reach significance, but significant responses by EASL (P < 0.01/0.03) and mRECIST (P < 0.01/0.03) at 1 and 3 months were observed. Response was equivalent by EASL or mRECIST. No difference in response rates was observed between groups A and B at 1 and 3 months by WHO, RECIST, EASL, mRECIST or ADC measurements. Despite failing to reach significance, smaller baseline size was associated with complete pathological necrosis (CPN) (RECIST: P = 0.07; WHO: P = 0.05). However, a cut‐off size of 35 mm was predictive of CPN (P = 0.005). CPN could not be predicted by WHO (P = 0.25 and 0.62), RECIST (P = 0.35 and 0.54), EASL (P = 0.49 and 0.46), mRECIST (P = 0.49 and 0.60) or ADC (P = 0.86 and 0.93). Conclusion: The adjunct of Sorafenib did not augment radiological or pathological response to Y90 therapy for HCC. Equivalent significant reduction in enhancement at 1 and 3 months by EASL/mRECIST was noted. Neither EASL nor mRECIST could reliably predict CPN. (HEPATOLOGY 2013;58:1655–1666)
Abstract Background Central nervous system (CNS) progression is common in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase –positive ( ALK +) non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving crizotinib. Next-generation ALK inhibitors have shown activity against CNS metastases, but accurate assessment of response and progression is vital. Data from two phase II studies in crizotinib-refractory ALK + NSCLC were pooled to examine the CNS efficacy of alectinib, a CNS-active ALK inhibitor, using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1) and Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology high-grade glioma (RANO-HGG) criteria. Methods Both studies enrolled patients aged ≥18 years who had previously received crizotinib. NP28761 was conducted in North America and NP28673 was a global study. All patients received 600 mg oral alectinib twice daily and had baseline CNS imaging. CNS response for those with baseline CNS metastases was determined by an independent review committee. Results Baseline measurable CNS disease was identified in 50 patients by RECIST and 43 by RANO-HGG. CNS objective response rate was 64.0% by RECIST (95% confidence interval [CI]: 49.2–77.1; 11 CNS complete responses [CCRs]) and 53.5% by RANO-HGG (95% CI: 37.7–68.8; eight CCRs). CNS responses were durable, with consistent estimates of median duration of 10.8 months with RECIST and 11.1 months with RANO-HGG. Of the 39 patients with measurable CNS disease by both RECIST and RANO-HGG, only three (8%) had CNS progression according to one criteria but not the other (92% concordance rate). Conclusion Alectinib demonstrated promising efficacy in the CNS for ALK + NSCLC patients pretreated with crizotinib, regardless of the assessment criteria used.
The purpose of this review article is to familiarize radiologists with the recently revised Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), used in many anticancer drug trials to assess response and progression rate. The most important modifications are: a reduction in the maximum number of target lesions from ten to five, with a maximum of two per organ, with a longest diameter of at least 10 mm; in lymph nodes (LNs) the short axis rather than the long axis should be measured, with normal LN measuring <10 mm, non-target LN ≥10 mm but <15 mm and target LN ≥15 mm; osteolytic lesions with a soft tissue component and cystic tumours may serve as target lesions; an additional requirement for progressive disease (PD) of target lesions is not only a ≥20% increase in the sum of the longest diameter (SLD) from the nadir but also a ≥5 mm absolute increase in the SLD (the other response categories of target lesion are unchanged); PD of non-target lesions can only be applied if the increase in non-target lesions is representative of change in overall tumour burden; detailed imaging guidelines. Alternative response criteria in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and gastrointestinal stromal tumours are discussed.
Purpose: To compare radiologic response as defined according to both Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and the new Choi criteria recently proposed for gastrointestinal stromal tumors with pathologic response in high-grade soft-tissue sarcomas (STSs) treated with preoperative chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Materials and Methods: The institutional ethical committee approved the trial in which patients were enrolled. Signed informed consent was obtained. Thirty-seven patients (21 men, 16 women; mean age, 44.2 years) enrolled in a collaborative randomized trial on preoperative chemotherapy and radiation therapy in localized high-risk STS at a single institution were selected for this retrospective analysis. Tumor response to preoperative treatment was assessed by using both RECIST and Choi criteria at computed tomography (CT) and was adapted to be used at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Pathologic response was assessed as either good or very good. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of RECIST and Choi criteria were calculated with pathologic response as the reference standard and were reported with 95% confidence intervals. Results: For 28 patients without synovial sarcomas, sensitivity of RECIST versus adapted Choi criteria was 32.0% versus 88.0% for good response and 41.2% versus 82.4% for very good response, respectively; specificity for pathologic response was 100% versus 100% for not a good response and 90.9% versus 27.3% for not a very good response, respectively. In synovial sarcoma, the nontreatment-related neoplastic cystic component of the tumor was a major obstacle for both RECIST and Choi criteria. Conclusion: In STS treated with chemotherapy and radiation therapy, tumor size may be insufficient to render actual tumor response. Tumor attenuation at CT or tumor contrast material enhancement at MR imaging may complement tumor size, thus making Choi criteria more predictive of pathologic response.