Literature DB >> 26440568

Comparison of WHO, RECIST 1.1, EORTC, and PERCIST criteria in the evaluation of treatment response in malignant solid tumors.

Mustafa Aras1, Tanju Y Erdil, Faysal Dane, Serkan Gungor, Tunc Ones, Fuat Dede, Sabahat Inanir, Halil T Turoglu.   

Abstract

AIM: To compare response assessment according to the WHO, RECIST 1.1, EORTC, and PERCIST criteria in patients diagnosed with malignant solid tumors and who had received cytotoxic chemotherapy to establish the strength of agreement between each criterion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with malignant solid tumors were included in this retrospective study. The baseline and the sequential follow-up fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography (CT) of each patient were evaluated according to the WHO, RECIST 1.1, EORTC, and PERCIST criteria. PET/CT images were used for both metabolic and anatomic evaluation. The concurrent diagnostic CT and MRI images (performed within 1 week of PET/CT) were also utilized when needed. The results were compared using the κ-statistics.
RESULTS: The response and progression rates according to the WHO criteria were 37 and 38%, respectively. The same ratios were also found for RECIST 1.1 (κ=1). The response and progression rates according to the EORTC criteria were 47 and 40%, respectively. When PERCIST criteria were used, one patient with progressive disease was upgraded to stable disease (κ=0.976). As we found the same results with WHO and RECIST 1.1 criteria, we used WHO criteria to compare the anatomic and metabolic criteria. When we compared the WHO and EORTC criteria, there was an agreement in 80% of the patients (κ=0.711). With WHO and PERCIST criteria, there was an agreement in 81.6% of the patients (κ=0.736).
CONCLUSION: Significant agreement was detected when the WHO, RECIST 1.1, EORTC, and PERCIST criteria were compared both within as well as between each other.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26440568     DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000401

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nucl Med Commun        ISSN: 0143-3636            Impact factor:   1.690


  24 in total

1.  PET/CT-Based Response Evaluation in Cancer-a Systematic Review of Design Issues.

Authors:  Oke Gerke; Karen Ehlers; Edith Motschall; Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen; Werner Vach
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 3.488

2.  Prediction of Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy Using Early-Time-Point 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging in Patients with Advanced Melanoma.

Authors:  Steve Y Cho; Evan J Lipson; Hyung-Jun Im; Steven P Rowe; Esther Mena Gonzalez; Amanda Blackford; Alin Chirindel; Drew M Pardoll; Suzanne L Topalian; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 3.  Evaluating tumor response with FDG PET: updates on PERCIST, comparison with EORTC criteria and clues to future developments.

Authors:  Katja Pinker; Christopher Riedl; Wolfgang A Weber
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Modification of the tumor response threshold in patients of advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy plus targeted agents: a pooled study from five clinical trials in one institution.

Authors:  Fan Luo; Zhonghan Zhang; Kunlun Liao; Yang Zhang; Yuxiang Ma; Zhihuang Hu; Kangmei Zeng; Yan Huang; Li Zhang; Hongyun Zhao
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-06

5.  A randomized, multicenter, phase III study of gemcitabine combined with capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone as first-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer in South Korea.

Authors:  Hee Seung Lee; Moon Jae Chung; Jeong Youp Park; Seungmin Bang; Seung Woo Park; Ho Gak Kim; Myung Hwan Noh; Sang Hyub Lee; Yong-Tae Kim; Hyo Jung Kim; Chang Duck Kim; Dong Ki Lee; Kwang Bum Cho; Chang Min Cho; Jong Ho Moon; Dong Uk Kim; Dae Hwan Kang; Young Koog Cheon; Ho Soon Choi; Tae Hyeon Kim; Jae Kwang Kim; Jieun Moon; Hye Jung Shin; Si Young Song
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.889

Review 6.  Anti-angiogenesis target therapy for advanced osteosarcoma (Review).

Authors:  Lu Xie; Tao Ji; Wei Guo
Journal:  Oncol Rep       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 3.906

7.  First-in-Humans Study of the SSTR Antagonist 177Lu-DOTA-LM3 for Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Dosimetry, Safety, and Efficacy.

Authors:  Richard P Baum; Jingjing Zhang; Christiane Schuchardt; Dirk Müller; Helmut Mäcke
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 11.082

Review 8.  Prognostic significance of (18)FDG PET/CT in colorectal cancer patients with liver metastases: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qian Xia; Jianjun Liu; Cheng Wu; Shaoli Song; Linjun Tong; Gang Huang; Yuanbo Feng; Yansheng Jiang; Yewei Liu; Ting Yin; Yicheng Ni
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 3.909

Review 9.  Comparison of the RECIST and PERCIST criteria in solid tumors: a pooled analysis and review.

Authors:  Seon Jeong Min; Hyun Joo Jang; Jung Han Kim
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-05-10

Review 10.  Comparison of the EORTC criteria and PERCIST in solid tumors: a pooled analysis and review.

Authors:  Jung Han Kim
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-09-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.