OBJECTIVE: Our retrospective study compared Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 with modified CT criteria to determine their respective utilities as a prognostic indicator. Using both sets of criteria, we compared treatment responses of patients with colorectal liver metastases treated with bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy with those of patients treated with chemotherapy alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine patients who received bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy (n=30, group 1) or chemotherapy alone (n=29, group 2) for the treatment of colorectal carcinoma underwent contrast-enhanced CT before treatment and 2 months after treatment. Two radiologists determined changes in tumor size and density between the pretreatment and 2-month follow-up CT images. RECIST 1.1 assesses responses on the basis of changes in tumor size, and the modified CT criteria assesses responses on the basis of changes in tumor density and size. Responses were correlated with time to tumor progression by log rank test. RESULTS: According to RECIST 1.1, nine of 30 patients (30%) in group 1 and 12 of 29 patients (41%) in group 2 were good responders. According to the modified CT criteria, 23 of 30 patients in group 1 (77%) and 23 of 29 patients in group 2 (79%) were good responders. As assessed by the modified CT criteria, good responders in both groups had significantly longer time to tumor progression than poor responders (p<0.05). As assessed by RECIST 1.1, good responders in group 1 had significantly longer time to tumor progression than poor responders (p=0.0154), but there was no difference in group 2. CONCLUSION: Evaluating treatment response with tumor size and density changes on CT was a better predictor of time to tumor progression than changes in tumor size alone in both groups.
OBJECTIVE: Our retrospective study compared Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 with modified CT criteria to determine their respective utilities as a prognostic indicator. Using both sets of criteria, we compared treatment responses of patients with colorectal liver metastases treated with bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy with those of patients treated with chemotherapy alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine patients who received bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy (n=30, group 1) or chemotherapy alone (n=29, group 2) for the treatment of colorectal carcinoma underwent contrast-enhanced CT before treatment and 2 months after treatment. Two radiologists determined changes in tumor size and density between the pretreatment and 2-month follow-up CT images. RECIST 1.1 assesses responses on the basis of changes in tumor size, and the modified CT criteria assesses responses on the basis of changes in tumor density and size. Responses were correlated with time to tumor progression by log rank test. RESULTS: According to RECIST 1.1, nine of 30 patients (30%) in group 1 and 12 of 29 patients (41%) in group 2 were good responders. According to the modified CT criteria, 23 of 30 patients in group 1 (77%) and 23 of 29 patients in group 2 (79%) were good responders. As assessed by the modified CT criteria, good responders in both groups had significantly longer time to tumor progression than poor responders (p<0.05). As assessed by RECIST 1.1, good responders in group 1 had significantly longer time to tumor progression than poor responders (p=0.0154), but there was no difference in group 2. CONCLUSION: Evaluating treatment response with tumor size and density changes on CT was a better predictor of time to tumor progression than changes in tumor size alone in both groups.
Authors: Marco Ravanelli; Giorgio Maria Agazzi; Elena Tononcelli; Elisa Roca; Paolo Cabassa; Gianluca Baiocchi; Alfredo Berruti; Roberto Maroldi; Davide Farina Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Sheng-Xiang Rao; Doenja Mj Lambregts; Roald S Schnerr; Rianne Cj Beckers; Monique Maas; Fabrizio Albarello; Robert G Riedl; Cornelis Hc Dejong; Milou H Martens; Luc A Heijnen; Walter H Backes; Geerard L Beets; Meng-Su Zeng; Regina Gh Beets-Tan Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Sree Harsha Tirumani; Kyung Won Kim; Mizuki Nishino; Stephanie A Howard; Katherine M Krajewski; Jyothi P Jagannathan; James M Cleary; Nikhil H Ramaiya; Atul B Shinagare Journal: Radiographics Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Mark R Gray; Sara Martin del Campo; Xu Zhang; Haowei Zhang; Frederico F Souza; William E Carson; Andrew D Smith Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Pier Paolo Mainenti; Federica Romano; Laura Pizzuti; Sabrina Segreto; Giovanni Storto; Lorenzo Mannelli; Massimo Imbriaco; Luigi Camera; Simone Maurea Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2015-07-28
Authors: Waleed Shady; Vlasios S Sotirchos; Richard K Do; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Mithat Gonen; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 3.959