BACKGROUND: The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) has been revised (RECIST 1.1) since initial publication of RECIST 1.0 in 2000. Major changes in RECIST 1.1 involve lymph node measurement, the maximum number of target lesions, and the definition of disease progression (PD). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of RECIST 1.1 for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients being treated with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared responses of 104 NSCLC patients treated with TKIs from eight prospective studies using RECIST 1.0 and 1.1. RESULTS: The short axis measurement for lymph nodes was the most influential change in RECIST 1.1 for the evaluation of response. Overall response rates (ORRs) using RECIST 1.0 and 1.1 were 35.6% and 38.5%, respectively. Under RECIST 1.1, six best responses were reclassified: two partial responses (PR) were re-categorized as complete responses, three cases of stable disease (SD) were reclassified as PR, and one case of SD was reclassified as PD. The progression-free survivals of three patients were extended. RECIST 1.1 showed a slightly increased ORR compared with RECIST 1.0. CONCLUSION: RECIST 1.1 may reflect tumor burden more accurately than RECIST 1.0 in NSCLC patients treated with TKIs. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) has been revised (RECIST 1.1) since initial publication of RECIST 1.0 in 2000. Major changes in RECIST 1.1 involve lymph node measurement, the maximum number of target lesions, and the definition of disease progression (PD). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of RECIST 1.1 for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients being treated with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared responses of 104 NSCLCpatients treated with TKIs from eight prospective studies using RECIST 1.0 and 1.1. RESULTS: The short axis measurement for lymph nodes was the most influential change in RECIST 1.1 for the evaluation of response. Overall response rates (ORRs) using RECIST 1.0 and 1.1 were 35.6% and 38.5%, respectively. Under RECIST 1.1, six best responses were reclassified: two partial responses (PR) were re-categorized as complete responses, three cases of stable disease (SD) were reclassified as PR, and one case of SD was reclassified as PD. The progression-free survivals of three patients were extended. RECIST 1.1 showed a slightly increased ORR compared with RECIST 1.0. CONCLUSION: RECIST 1.1 may reflect tumor burden more accurately than RECIST 1.0 in NSCLCpatients treated with TKIs. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; Stephanie Cardarella; David M Jackman; Nikhil H Ramaiya; Michael S Rabin; Hiroto Hatabu; Pasi A Jänne; Bruce E Johnson Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: S A Hayes; M C Pietanza; D O'Driscoll; J Zheng; C S Moskowitz; M G Kris; M S Ginsberg Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-01-02 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Hyun Chang Choi; Jung Han Kim; Hyeong Su Kim; Soong Goo Jung; Sang Muk Hwang; Sung Bae Ju; Ik Yang Journal: J Cancer Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Nikhil H Ramaiya; F Stephen Hodi; Mizuki Nishino; Maria Gargano; Margaret Suda Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 13.751