CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology 2019; 02(02): 098-106
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1692021
Review Article
Indian Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology

Tumor Response Criteria in Oncoimaging: RECIST Criteria and beyond—Part 1

1   Department of Radiodiagnosis, Delhi State Cancer Institute, New Delhi, India
,
Akshay D. Baheti
2   Department of Radiodiagnosis, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Anurima Patra
2   Department of Radiodiagnosis, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Sree Harsha Tirumani
3   Department of Imaging, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
4   Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 03 March 2019

Accepted after revision: 26 March 2019

Publication Date:
22 July 2019 (online)

Abstract

The rapid recent advances in oncology have made the dream of precision oncology a reality, with targeted therapy available for various tumors depending on the molecular genotype. This has led to the corresponding development of personalized radiology as well, with various tumor response criteria used to characterize disease response/progression depending on chemotherapy used. In these two review articles, we review the various tumor response criteria widely applied in both research and clinical settings. These include the classic size-based criteria such as RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) 1.1 and the WHO (World Health Organization) criteria, as also various other criteria such as Choi and modified Choi criteria for tumors treated by targeted therapy, EASL and modified RECIST (mRECIST) criteria for hepatocellular carcinomas, and immune-related response criteria (irRC) and immune RECIST (iRECIST) for patients on immunotherapy. Other clinically important criteria such as PERCIST (PET Response Criteria In Solid Tumors) for positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET-CT) and the MD Anderson criteria for evaluating bone metastases are also highlighted.

 
  • References

  • 1 Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA. et al. 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 2000; 92 (03) 205-216
  • 2 Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J. et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45 (02) 228-247
  • 3 Choi H. Response evaluation of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Oncologist 2008; 13 (Suppl. 02) 4-7
  • 4 Seymour L, Bogaerts J, Perrone A. et al; RECIST working group. iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18 (03) e143-e152
  • 5 Hamaoka T, Madewell JE, Podoloff DA, Hortobagyi GN, Ueno NT. Bone imaging in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22 (14) 2942-2953
  • 6 WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. Vol. 48 World Health Organization Offset Publication; 1979
  • 7 Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981; 47 (01) 207-214
  • 8 Moertel CG, Hanley JA. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer 1976; 38 (01) 388-394
  • 9 Jaffe CC. Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24 (20) 3245-3251
  • 10 James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M. et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91 (06) 523-528
  • 11 Rezai P, Pisaneschi MJ, Feng C, Yaghmai V. A radiologist's guide to treatment response criteria in oncologic imaging: anatomic imaging biomarkers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201 (02) 237-245
  • 12 Bogaerts J, Ford R, Sargent D. et al; RECIST Working Party. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45 (02) 248-260
  • 13 Tirkes T, Hollar MA, Tann M, Kohli MD, Akisik F, Sandrasegaran K. Response criteria in oncologic imaging: review of traditional and new criteria. Radiographics 2013; 33 (05) 1323-1341
  • 14 Subbiah V, Chuang HH, Gambhire D, Kairemo K. Defining clinical response criteria and early response criteria for precision oncology: current state-of-the-art and future perspectives. Diagnostics (Basel) 2017; 7 (01) 10
  • 15 Schwartz LH, Bogaerts J, Ford R. et al. Evaluation of lymph nodes with RECIST 1.1. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45 (02) 261-267
  • 16 Schwartz LH, Seymour L, Litière S. et al. RECIST 1.1—standardisation and disease-specific adaptations: perspectives from the RECIST Working Group. Eur J Cancer 2016; 62 (March) 138-145
  • 17 Abramson RG, McGhee CR, Lakomkin N, Arteaga CL. Pitfalls in RECIST data extraction for clinical trials: beyond the basics. Acad Radiol 2015; 22 (06) 779-786
  • 18 Sheth PJ, Del Moral S, Wilky BA. et al. Desmoid fibromatosis: MRI features of response to systemic therapy. Skeletal Radiol 2016; 45 (10) 1365-1373
  • 19 Nishino M, Jagannathan JP, Ramaiya NH, Van den Abbeele AD. Revised RECIST guideline version 1.1: what oncologists want to know and what radiologists need to know. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195 (02) 281-289
  • 20 Kuhl CK, Alparslan Y, Schmoee J. et al. Validity of RECIST version 1.1 for response assessment in metastatic cancer: a prospective, multireader study. Radiology 2019; 290 (02) 349-356