Gil-Su Jang1, Min-Jeong Kim2, Hong-Il Ha2, Jung Han Kim3, Hyeong Su Kim3, Sung Bae Ju3, Dae Young Zang1. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang 431-070, South Korea; 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang 431-070, South Korea; 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul 136-705, South Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guideline version 1.0 (RECIST 1.0) was proposed as a new guideline for evaluating tumor response and has been widely accepted as a standardized measure. With a number of issues being raised on RECIST 1.0, however, a revised RECIST guideline version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) was proposed by the RECIST Working Group in 2009. This study was conducted to compare CT tumor response based on RECIST 1.1 vs. RECIST 1.0 in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS: We reviewed 61 AGC patients with measurable diseases by RECIST 1.0 who were enrolled in other clinical trials between 2008 and 2010. These patients were retrospectively re-analyzed to determine the concordance between the two response criteria using the κ statistic. RESULTS: The number and sum of tumor diameters of the target lesions by RECIST 1.1 were significantly lower than those by RECIST 1.0 (P<0.0001). However, there was excellent agreement in tumor response between RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 (κ=0.844). The overall response rates (ORRs) according to RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 were 32.7% (20/61) and 34.5% (20/58), respectively. One patient with partial response (PR) based on RECIST 1.0 was reclassified as stable disease (SD) by RECIST 1.1. Of two patients with SD by RECIST 1.0, one was downgraded to progressive disease and the other was upgraded to PR by RECIST 1.1. CONCLUSIONS: RECIST 1.1 provided almost perfect agreement with RECIST 1.0 in the CT assessment of tumor response of AGC.
OBJECTIVE: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guideline version 1.0 (RECIST 1.0) was proposed as a new guideline for evaluating tumor response and has been widely accepted as a standardized measure. With a number of issues being raised on RECIST 1.0, however, a revised RECIST guideline version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) was proposed by the RECIST Working Group in 2009. This study was conducted to compare CT tumor response based on RECIST 1.1 vs. RECIST 1.0 in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS: We reviewed 61 AGC patients with measurable diseases by RECIST 1.0 who were enrolled in other clinical trials between 2008 and 2010. These patients were retrospectively re-analyzed to determine the concordance between the two response criteria using the κ statistic. RESULTS: The number and sum of tumor diameters of the target lesions by RECIST 1.1 were significantly lower than those by RECIST 1.0 (P<0.0001). However, there was excellent agreement in tumor response between RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 (κ=0.844). The overall response rates (ORRs) according to RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 were 32.7% (20/61) and 34.5% (20/58), respectively. One patient with partial response (PR) based on RECIST 1.0 was reclassified as stable disease (SD) by RECIST 1.1. Of two patients with SD by RECIST 1.0, one was downgraded to progressive disease and the other was upgraded to PR by RECIST 1.1. CONCLUSIONS: RECIST 1.1 provided almost perfect agreement with RECIST 1.0 in the CT assessment of tumor response of AGC.
Entities:
Keywords:
Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guideline version 1.0 (RECIST 1.0); Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guideline version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1); gastric cancer; tumor response
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; David M Jackman; Hiroto Hatabu; Beow Y Yeap; Leigh-Anne Cioffredi; Jeffrey T Yap; Pasi A Jänne; Bruce E Johnson; Annick D Van den Abbeele Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J E Dancey; L E Dodd; R Ford; R Kaplan; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L H Schwartz; L Shankar; P Therasse Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Hamid Chalian; Hüseyin Gürkan Töre; Jeanne M Horowitz; Riad Salem; Frank H Miller; Vahid Yaghmai Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Jong-Mu Sun; Myung-Ju Ahn; Min Jae Park; Jun Ho Yi; Tae Sung Kim; Myung Jin Chung; Yeon Hee Park; Jin Seok Ahn; Keunchil Park Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: D J Sargent; L Rubinstein; L Schwartz; J E Dancey; C Gatsonis; L E Dodd; L K Shankar Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: L H Schwartz; J Bogaerts; R Ford; L Shankar; P Therasse; S Gwyther; E A Eisenhauer Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Marta Sandini; Manuel Patino; Cristina R Ferrone; Carlos A Alvarez-Pérez; Kim C Honselmann; Salvatore Paiella; Matteo Catania; Luca Riva; Giorgia Tedesco; Raffaella Casolino; Alessandra Auriemma; Maria C Salandini; Giulia Carrara; Giulia Cristel; Anna Damascelli; Davide Ippolito; Mirko D'Onofrio; Keith D Lillemoe; Claudio Bassi; Marco Braga; Luca Gianotti; Dushyant Sahani; Carlos Fernández-Del Castillo Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Sreenath M Krishnan; Sofiene S Laarif; Brendan C Bender; Angelica L Quartino; Lena E Friberg Journal: CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol Date: 2021-05-02
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