Literature DB >> 33738548

RECIST 1.1 and lesion selection: How to deal with ambiguity at baseline?

Antoine Iannessi1, Hubert Beaumont2, Yan Liu1, Anne-Sophie Bertrand3.   

Abstract

Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) is still the predominant criteria base for assessing tumor burden in oncology clinical trials. Despite several improvements that followed its first publication, RECIST continues to allow readers a lot of freedom in their evaluations. Notably in the selection of tumors at baseline. This subjectivity is the source of many suboptimal evaluations. When starting a baseline analysis, radiologists cannot always identify tumor malignancy with any certainty. Also, with RECIST, some findings can be deemed equivocal by radiologists with no confirmatory ground truth to rely on. In the specific case of Blinded Independent Central Review clinical trials with double reads using RECIST, the selection of equivocal tumors can have two major consequences: inter-reader variability and modified sensitivity of the therapeutic response. Apart from the main causes leading to the selection of an equivocal lesion, due to the uncertainty of the radiological characteristics or due to the censoring of on-site evaluations, several other situations can be described more precisely. These latter involve cases where an equivocal is selected as target or non-target lesions, the management of equivocal lymph nodes and the case of few target lesions. In all cases, awareness of the impact of selecting a non-malignant lesion will lead radiologists to make selections in the most rational way. Also, in clinical trials where the primary endpoint differs between phase 2 (response-related) and phase 3 (progression-related) trials, our impact analysis will help them to devise strategies for the management of equivocal lesions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical trials; Oncology; RECIST; Therapeutic response

Year:  2021        PMID: 33738548      PMCID: PMC7973344          DOI: 10.1186/s13244-021-00976-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Insights Imaging        ISSN: 1869-4101


  12 in total

Review 1.  Observer variability in RECIST-based tumour burden measurements: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Soon Ho Yoon; Kyung Won Kim; Jin Mo Goo; Dong-Wan Kim; Seokyung Hahn
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  Sometimes size doesn't matter: reevaluating RECIST and tumor response rate endpoints.

Authors:  Rabiya S Tuma
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-09-20       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Target lesion selection: an important factor causing variability of response classification in the Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors 1.1.

Authors:  Sebastian Keil; Alexandra Barabasch; Timm Dirrichs; Philipp Bruners; Nienke Lynn Hansen; Heribert B Bieling; Tim H Brümmendorf; Christiane K Kuhl
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 6.016

4.  Observer variability in a phase II trial - assessing consistency in RECIST application.

Authors:  Kristin Skougaard; Mark James Dusgaard McCullagh; Dorte Nielsen; Helle Westergren Hendel; Benny Vittrup Jensen; Helle Hjorth Johannesen
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 4.089

5.  Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points.

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

6.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

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

7.  Evaluation of lymph nodes with RECIST 1.1.

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

8.  Inter-operator variability and source of errors in tumour response assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

Authors:  Francesco Tovoli; Matteo Renzulli; Giulia Negrini; Stefano Brocchi; Alessia Ferrarini; Andrea Andreone; Francesca Benevento; Rita Golfieri; Antonio Maria Morselli-Labate; Marianna Mastroroberto; Radu Ion Badea; Fabio Piscaglia
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-04-09       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Intra- and inter-observer variability in measurement of target lesions: implication on response evaluation according to RECIST 1.1.

Authors:  Daniela Muenzel; Heinz-Peter Engels; Melanie Bruegel; Victoria Kehl; Ernst J Rummeny; Stephan Metz
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2012-01-02       Impact factor: 2.991

10.  Osteoblastic flare in a patient with advanced gastric cancer after treatment with pemetrexed and oxaliplatin: implications for response assessment with RECIST criteria.

Authors:  Vito Amoroso; Frida Pittiani; Salvatore Grisanti; Francesca Valcamonico; Edda Simoncini; Vittorio D Ferrari; Giovanni Marini
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2007-06-01       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Local Investigators Significantly Overestimate Overall Response Rates Compared to Blinded Independent Central Reviews in Uncontrolled Oncology Trials: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Cinzia Dello Russo; Pierluigi Navarra
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 5.988

2.  Twenty Years On: RECIST as a Biomarker of Response in Solid Tumours an EORTC Imaging Group - ESOI Joint Paper.

Authors:  Laure Fournier; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Daniele Regge; Daniela-Elena Oprea-Lager; Melvin D'Anastasi; Luc Bidaut; Tobias Bäuerle; Egesta Lopci; Giovanni Cappello; Frederic Lecouvet; Marius Mayerhoefer; Wolfgang G Kunz; Joost J C Verhoeff; Damiano Caruso; Marion Smits; Ralf-Thorsten Hoffmann; Sofia Gourtsoyianni; Regina Beets-Tan; Emanuele Neri; Nandita M deSouza; Christophe M Deroose; Caroline Caramella
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 6.244

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.