TY - JOUR
T1 - The role of response evaluation criteria in solid tumour in anticancer treatment evaluation
T2 - Results of a survey in the oncology community
AU - Liu, Yan
AU - Litière, Saskia
AU - De Vries, Elisabeth Ge
AU - Sargent, Daniel
AU - Shankar, Lalitha
AU - Bogaerts, Jan
AU - Seymour, Lesley
N1 - Funding Information:
This publication was supported by the EORTC Charitable Trust. The authors wish to thank the members of the RECIST Working Group for their generous participation: Janet Dancey, Robert Ford, Steve Gwyther, Wendy Hayes, Otto Hoekstra, Eric Huang, Sumithra Mandrekar, Margaret Mooney, Larry Rubinstein, Larry Schwartz, Patrick Therasse and Helen Young.
PY - 2014/1
Y1 - 2014/1
N2 - Purpose With the increasing use of novel targeted agents and the development of high imaging techniques, response evaluation criteria in solid tumour (RECIST) 1.1 developed primarily for cytotoxic agents and anatomic imaging, has demonstrated limitations. A survey was conducted of RECIST users to identify concerns and their suggestions for future RECIST criteria. Methods 140 key partners of the RECIST collaboration were asked to complete a questionnaire. The 49 questions concerned (a) satisfaction and concerns with RECIST 1.1; (b) use of modified RECIST criteria and (c) suggestions for the next RECIST Version. Results Sixty-five replies were received. 52.3% responders were satisfied with RECIST 1.1, while 10.8% indicated dissatisfaction. Areas of potential weakness included: (a) lack of incorporation of potential early indicators of response such as functional imaging, (b) lack of validation in rarer tumour types and (c) lack of validation for novel (targeted) agents. Suggestions were multiple, with highest numbers on two points: developing sub-criteria for certain disease types and including advanced imaging techniques for the evaluation. Conclusions Constructive suggestions were received for optimising the next version. Ongoing data collection will make it possible to investigate the possible utilisation of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging in tumour assessment, to verify whether RECIST is/can still be applicable in novel targeted therapy and to consider the need for criteria for specific disease types.
AB - Purpose With the increasing use of novel targeted agents and the development of high imaging techniques, response evaluation criteria in solid tumour (RECIST) 1.1 developed primarily for cytotoxic agents and anatomic imaging, has demonstrated limitations. A survey was conducted of RECIST users to identify concerns and their suggestions for future RECIST criteria. Methods 140 key partners of the RECIST collaboration were asked to complete a questionnaire. The 49 questions concerned (a) satisfaction and concerns with RECIST 1.1; (b) use of modified RECIST criteria and (c) suggestions for the next RECIST Version. Results Sixty-five replies were received. 52.3% responders were satisfied with RECIST 1.1, while 10.8% indicated dissatisfaction. Areas of potential weakness included: (a) lack of incorporation of potential early indicators of response such as functional imaging, (b) lack of validation in rarer tumour types and (c) lack of validation for novel (targeted) agents. Suggestions were multiple, with highest numbers on two points: developing sub-criteria for certain disease types and including advanced imaging techniques for the evaluation. Conclusions Constructive suggestions were received for optimising the next version. Ongoing data collection will make it possible to investigate the possible utilisation of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging in tumour assessment, to verify whether RECIST is/can still be applicable in novel targeted therapy and to consider the need for criteria for specific disease types.
KW - Advanced MR techniques
KW - FDG-PET
KW - RECIST
KW - Targeted agents
KW - Tumour assessment criteria
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84891825549&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84891825549&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.10.011
DO - 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.10.011
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84891825549
SN - 0959-8049
VL - 50
SP - 260
EP - 266
JO - European Journal of Cancer
JF - European Journal of Cancer
IS - 2
ER -