Comparison of the morphologic criteria (RECIST) and metabolic criteria (EORTC and PERCIST) in tumor response assessments: a pooled analysis
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background/Aims: The Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) or European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria are used to assess metabolic tumor responses. However, tumor responses have shown considerable discrepancies between the morphologic criteria (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST]) and metabolic criteria. We performed this pooled study to compare the RECIST and metabolic criteria in the assessment of tumor responses. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for eligible articles with the terms “RECIST,” “PERCIST,” or “EORTC criteria.” The level of concordance in the tumor responses between the two criteria was estimated using κ statistics. Results: A total of 216 patients were collected from eight studies comparing the RECIST and EORTC criteria. The agreement of tumor responses between the two criteria was moderate (κ = 0.447). Eighty-six patients (39.8%) showed disagreement: tumor response was upgraded in 70 patients and downgraded in 16 when adopting the EORTC criteria. The EORTC criteria significantly increased the overall response rate (53% vs. 28%, p < 0.0001). The agreement of tumor responses between the RECIST and PERCIST was deemed fair (κ = 0.389). Of 407 patients from nine studies, 181 (44.5%) showed a discrepancy: using the PERCIST, tumor response were upgraded in 151 patients and downgraded in 30. When adopting the PERCIST, the overall response rate was also significantly increased from 30% to 55% (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: This pooled analysis demonstrates that the concordance of tumor responses between the morphologic criteria and metabolic criteria is not excellent. When adopting the metabolic criteria instead of the RECIST, overall response rates were significantly increased.
Abstract
Background/Aims: The Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) or European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria are used to assess metabolic tumor responses. However, tumor responses have shown considerable discrepancies between the morphologic criteria (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST]) and metabolic criteria. We performed this pooled study to compare the RECIST and metabolic criteria in the assessment of tumor responses. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for eligible articles with the terms “RECIST,” “PERCIST,” or “EORTC criteria.” The level of concordance in the tumor responses between the two criteria was estimated using κ statistics. Results: A total of 216 patients were collected from eight studies comparing the RECIST and EORTC criteria. The agreement of tumor responses between the two criteria was moderate (κ = 0.447). Eighty-six patients (39.8%) showed disagreement: tumor response was upgraded in 70 patients and downgraded in 16 when adopting the EORTC criteria. The EORTC criteria significantly increased the overall response rate (53% vs. 28%, p < 0.0001). The agreement of tumor responses between the RECIST and PERCIST was deemed fair (κ = 0.389). Of 407 patients from nine studies, 181 (44.5%) showed a discrepancy: using the PERCIST, tumor response were upgraded in 151 patients and downgraded in 30. When adopting the PERCIST, the overall response rate was also significantly increased from 30% to 55% (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: This pooled analysis demonstrates that the concordance of tumor responses between the morphologic criteria and metabolic criteria is not excellent. When adopting the metabolic criteria instead of the RECIST, overall response rates were significantly increased.
참고문헌 (40)
- Miller AB, "Reporting results of cancer treatment", Cancer, 47, pp.207~214 (1981)
- Therasse P, "New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada", J Natl Cancer Inst, 92, pp.205~216 (2000)
- Eisenhauer EA, "New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)", Eur J Cancer, 45, pp.228~247 (2009)
- Bogaerts J, "Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria", Eur J Cancer, 45, pp.248~260 (2009)
- Liu Y, "The role of response evaluation criteria in solid tumour in anticancer treatment evaluation : results of a survey in the oncology community", Eur J Cancer, 50, pp.260~266 (2014)
- Shankar LK, "Considerations for the use of imaging tools for phase II treatment trials in oncology", Clin Cancer Res, 15, pp.1891~1897 (2009)
- Krystal GW, "Early FDG", PET scanning as a pharmacodynamics marker of anti-EGFR antibody activity in colorectal cancer, 2012, pp.11, 1385~1388
- Skoura E, "Role of positron emission tomography in the early prediction of response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer", Clin Lung Cancer, 13, pp.181~187 (2012)
- Lee DH, "Early prediction of response to first-line therapy using integrated 18F-FDG PET", CT for patients with advanced, J Thorac Oncol, pp.2009, 4[DOI]
- -fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography:review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)PET Study Group, "Eur J Cancer", 1999, 1773~1782
- Wahl RL, "From RECIST to PERCIST : evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors", J Nucl Med, (50 Suppl 1), pp.122S~150S (2009)
- Kim JH, "Comparison of the EORTC criteria and PERCIST in solid tumors : a pooled analysis and review", Oncotarget, 7, pp.58105~58110 (2016)
- Skougaard K, "Comparison of EORTC criteria and PERCIST for PET", CT response evaluation of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan and cetuximab, 2013, pp.54, 1026~1031
- Monteil J, "Chemotherapy response evaluation in metastatic colorectal cancer with FDG PET", CT and CT scans, 2009, pp.29, 2563~2568
- Thacker CA, "18-FDG PET", CT assessment of basal cell carcinoma with vismodegib, 2012, pp.1, 230~236
- Magnan H, "Positron emission tomography for response assessment in desmoplastic small round cell tumor", J Pediatr Hematol Oncol, 35, pp.e190~e193 (2013)
- Adkins D, "A prospective trial comparing FDG-PET", CT and CT to assess tumor response to cetuximab in patients with incurable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, 2014, pp.3, 1493~1501
- Zukotynski K, "Metabolic response by FDG-PET to imatinib correlates with exon 11 KIT mutation and predicts outcome in patients with mucosal melanoma", Cancer Imaging, 14, pp.30~ (2014)
- Puranik AD, "Role of FDG PET", CT in assessing response to targeted therapy in metastatic lung cancers : morphological versus metabolic criteria, 2015, pp.30, 21~25
- Aras M, "1, EORTC, and PERCIST criteria in the evaluation of treatment response in malignant solid tumors", Nucl Med Commun, 37, pp.9~15 (2016)
- Shang J, "Comparison of RECIST, EORTC criteria and PERCIST for evaluation of early response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer", Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 43, pp.1945~1953 (2016)
- Ding Q, "PET", CT evaluation of response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer : PET response criteria in solid tumors(PERCIST)versus response evaluation criteria in solid tumors(RECIST), 2014, pp.6, 677~683
- Skougaard K, "CT versus FDG-PET", CT response evaluation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan and cetuximab, 2014, pp.3, 1294~1301
- Yanagawa M, "Evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for esophageal cancer : PET response criteria in solid tumors versus response evaluation criteria in solid tumors", J Nucl Med, 53, pp.872~880 (2012)
- Agrawal A, "Response assessment in metronomic chemotherapy: RECIST or PERCIST?", Indian J Nucl Med, 29, pp.74~80 (2014)
- Riedl CC, "Comparison of FDG-PET", CT and contrast-enhanced CT for monitoring therapy response in patients with metastatic breast cancer, 2017, pp.44, 1428~1437
- 방지인, "Comparison of Quantitative Methods on FDG PET", CT for Treatment Response Evaluation ofMetastatic Colorectal Cancer, 2017, pp.51(2), 147~153[DOI]
- Kim JH, "Comparison of RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 in patients with metastatic cancer: a pooled analysis", J Cancer, 6, pp.387~393 (2015)
- Kim JH, "Comparison of the RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1in patients treated with targeted agents: a pooled analysis and review", Oncotarget, 7, pp.13680~13687 (2016)
- Roberts C, "Modelling patterns of agreement for nominal scales", Stat Med, 27, pp.810~830 (2008)
- Liberati A, "The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration", BMJ, 339, pp.b2700~ (2009)
- Borksuz MF, "Morphologic and metabolic comparison of treatment responsiveness with 18fludeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography", computed tomography according to lung cancer type, 2016, pp.25, 63~69
- Ozturk H, "Comparing RECIST with EORTC criteria in metastatic bladder cancer", J Cancer Res Clin Oncol, 142, pp.187~194 (2016)
- Mertens LS, "FDG-positron emission tomography", computerized tomography for monitoring the response of pelvic lymph node metastasis to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for bladder cancer, 2013, pp.189, 1687~1691
- Ordu C, "Comparison of metabolic and anatomic response to chemotherapy based on PERCIST and RECIST in patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer", Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 16, pp.321~326 (2015)
- Stefano A, "Evaluation of erlotinib treatment response in non-small cell lung cancer using metabolic and anatomic criteria", Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 60, pp.264~273 (2016)
- Suzuki C, "Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment : practical approaches and limitations", Radiographics, 28, pp.329~344 (2008)
- Fletcher JW, "Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology", J Nucl Med, 49, pp.480~508 (2008)
- Mac Manus MP, "Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography scanning for response-assessment after radical radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with nonsmall-cell lung cancer", J Clin Oncol, 21, pp.1285~1292 (2003)
- Van den Abbeele AD, "The lessons of GIST-PET and PET", CT : a new paradigm for imaging, 2008, pp.(13 Suppl 2), 8~13