OBJECTIVE: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 has been rapidly accepted in clinical trials as a standard measure to assess tumor response to therapy and is expected to improve response assessment, especially in genomically defined patients. The impact of RECIST 1.1 was compared with RECIST 1.0 in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with sensitizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy patients with advanced NSCLC harboring sensitizing EGFR mutations treated with a first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor were retrospectively studied. Tumor measurements and response assessment were performed using RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1. The number of target lesions, the percentage change at the initial follow-up, best response, and time to progression were compared between RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0. RESULTS: The number of target lesions identified using RECIST 1.1 was significantly lower compared with that using RECIST 1.0 (mean, 2.7 and 2.0, respectively; p < 0.0001; paired Student t test), with a decrease in 31 patients (44%). The initial proportional changes of the target lesion measurements had high correlation between the two criteria (R(2) = 0.8070), with concordant response assessment in 66 patients (94%). The best response showed almost perfect agreement (κw = 0.970). Time to progression (TTP) did not differ between the two criteria in 52 patients (74%), was longer by RECIST 1.1 in 15 patients (21%), and was shorter by RECIST 1.1 in three patients (4%). CONCLUSION: RECIST 1.1 provided highly concordant response assessment with a decreased number of target lesions compared with RECIST 1.0 in advanced NSCLC patients harboring sensitizing EGFR mutations treated with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. RECIST 1.1 altered TTP in 25% of patients compared with RECIST 1.0.
OBJECTIVE: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 has been rapidly accepted in clinical trials as a standard measure to assess tumor response to therapy and is expected to improve response assessment, especially in genomically defined patients. The impact of RECIST 1.1 was compared with RECIST 1.0 in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with sensitizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy patients with advanced NSCLC harboring sensitizing EGFR mutations treated with a first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor were retrospectively studied. Tumor measurements and response assessment were performed using RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1. The number of target lesions, the percentage change at the initial follow-up, best response, and time to progression were compared between RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0. RESULTS: The number of target lesions identified using RECIST 1.1 was significantly lower compared with that using RECIST 1.0 (mean, 2.7 and 2.0, respectively; p < 0.0001; paired Student t test), with a decrease in 31 patients (44%). The initial proportional changes of the target lesion measurements had high correlation between the two criteria (R(2) = 0.8070), with concordant response assessment in 66 patients (94%). The best response showed almost perfect agreement (κw = 0.970). Time to progression (TTP) did not differ between the two criteria in 52 patients (74%), was longer by RECIST 1.1 in 15 patients (21%), and was shorter by RECIST 1.1 in three patients (4%). CONCLUSION: RECIST 1.1 provided highly concordant response assessment with a decreased number of target lesions compared with RECIST 1.0 in advanced NSCLCpatients harboring sensitizing EGFR mutations treated with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. RECIST 1.1 altered TTP in 25% of patients compared with RECIST 1.0.
Authors: David M Jackman; Beow Y Yeap; Neal I Lindeman; Panos Fidias; Michael S Rabin; Jennifer Temel; Arthur T Skarin; Matthew Meyerson; Alison J Holmes; Ana M Borras; Boris Freidlin; Patricia A Ostler; Joan Lucca; Thomas J Lynch; Bruce E Johnson; Pasi A Jänne Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-01-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David M Jackman; Beow Y Yeap; Lecia V Sequist; Neal Lindeman; Alison J Holmes; Victoria A Joshi; Daphne W Bell; Mark S Huberman; Balazs Halmos; Michael S Rabin; Daniel A Haber; Thomas J Lynch; Matthew Meyerson; Bruce E Johnson; Pasi A Jänne Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-07-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: N van Zandwijk; A Mathy; L Boerrigter; H Ruijter; I Tielen; D de Jong; P Baas; S Burgers; P Nederlof Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-10-23 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Lecia V Sequist; Renato G Martins; David Spigel; Steven M Grunberg; Alexander Spira; Pasi A Jänne; Victoria A Joshi; David McCollum; Tracey L Evans; Alona Muzikansky; Georgiana L Kuhlmann; Moon Han; Jonathan S Goldberg; Jeffrey Settleman; A John Iafrate; Jeffrey A Engelman; Daniel A Haber; Bruce E Johnson; Thomas J Lynch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-05-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Guillermo Paez; Pasi A Jänne; Jeffrey C Lee; Sean Tracy; Heidi Greulich; Stacey Gabriel; Paula Herman; Frederic J Kaye; Neal Lindeman; Titus J Boggon; Katsuhiko Naoki; Hidefumi Sasaki; Yoshitaka Fujii; Michael J Eck; William R Sellers; Bruce E Johnson; Matthew Meyerson Journal: Science Date: 2004-04-29 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Thomas J Lynch; Daphne W Bell; Raffaella Sordella; Sarada Gurubhagavatula; Ross A Okimoto; Brian W Brannigan; Patricia L Harris; Sara M Haserlat; Jeffrey G Supko; Frank G Haluska; David N Louis; David C Christiani; Jeff Settleman; Daniel A Haber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-04-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeffrey A Engelman; Kreshnik Zejnullahu; Tetsuya Mitsudomi; Youngchul Song; Courtney Hyland; Joon Oh Park; Neal Lindeman; Christopher-Michael Gale; Xiaojun Zhao; James Christensen; Takayuki Kosaka; Alison J Holmes; Andrew M Rogers; Federico Cappuzzo; Tony Mok; Charles Lee; Bruce E Johnson; Lewis C Cantley; Pasi A Jänne Journal: Science Date: 2007-04-26 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: William Pao; Vincent A Miller; Katerina A Politi; Gregory J Riely; Romel Somwar; Maureen F Zakowski; Mark G Kris; Harold Varmus Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2005-02-22 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Michael P Manos; Nancy Bailey; Elizabeth I Buchbinder; Patrick A Ott; Nikhil H Ramaiya; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Benjamin L Lampson; Mizuki Nishino; Suzanne E Dahlberg; Danie Paul; Abigail A Santos; Pasi A Jänne; Geoffrey R Oxnard Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; Suzanne E Dahlberg; Linnea E Fulton; Subba R Digumarthy; Hiroto Hatabu; Bruce E Johnson; Lecia V Sequist Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; Suzanne E Dahlberg; Anika E Adeni; Christine A Lydon; Hiroto Hatabu; Pasi A Jänne; F Stephen Hodi; Mark M Awad Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 12.531
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