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

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

<p class="first" id="P1">Eighteen years ago, the EORTC PET criteria standardized for the first-time response assessment by FDG PET. Response assessment by FDG PET has been further developed and refined by PERCIST (PET response criteria in solid tumors). This review describes the data underlying these two systems for assessing tumor response on FDG PET/CT. It also summarizes recent clinical studies that have compared EORTC criteria and PERCIST with each other as well as with the anatomically based “response criteria in solid tumors” (RECIST). These studies have shown that response assessment by EORTC criteria and PERCIST leads to very similar response classifications. In contrast, there are significant differences between response assessment by PERCIST and RECIST. Preliminary data also suggest that response assessment by PERCIST is better correlated with patient outcome and may be a better predictor for the effectiveness of new anti-cancer therapies than RECIST. If correct, this could have a significant impact on oncologic drug development. However, confirmation of the better predictive value of response assessment by PERCIST by data from randomized trials is still lacking. </p>

Related collections

Most cited references 58

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis.

Patricia Cortazar, Lijun Zhang, Michael Untch … (2014)

Pathological complete response has been proposed as a surrogate endpoint for prediction of long-term clinical benefit, such as disease-free survival, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS). We had four key objectives: to establish the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS, to establish the definition of pathological complete response that correlates best with long-term outcome, to identify the breast cancer subtypes in which pathological complete response is best correlated with long-term outcome, and to assess whether an increase in frequency of pathological complete response between treatment groups predicts improved EFS and OS. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Medline for clinical trials of neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. To be eligible, studies had to meet three inclusion criteria: include at least 200 patients with primary breast cancer treated with preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery; have available data for pathological complete response, EFS, and OS; and have a median follow-up of at least 3 years. We compared the three most commonly used definitions of pathological complete response--ypT0 ypN0, ypT0/is ypN0, and ypT0/is--for their association with EFS and OS in a responder analysis. We assessed the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS in various subgroups. Finally, we did a trial-level analysis to assess whether pathological complete response could be used as a surrogate endpoint for EFS or OS. We obtained data from 12 identified international trials and 11 955 patients were included in our responder analysis. Eradication of tumour from both breast and lymph nodes (ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0) was better associated with improved EFS (ypT0 ypN0: hazard ratio [HR] 0·44, 95% CI 0·39-0·51; ypT0/is ypN0: 0·48, 0·43-0·54) and OS (0·36, 0·30-0·44; 0·36, 0·31-0·42) than was tumour eradication from the breast alone (ypT0/is; EFS: HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·55-0·66; OS 0·51, 0·45-0·58). We used the ypT0/is ypN0 definition for all subsequent analyses. The association between pathological complete response and long-term outcomes was strongest in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (EFS: HR 0·24, 95% CI 0·18-0·33; OS: 0·16, 0·11-0·25) and in those with HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative tumours who received trastuzumab (EFS: 0·15, 0·09-0·27; OS: 0·08, 0·03, 0·22). In the trial-level analysis, we recorded little association between increases in frequency of pathological complete response and EFS (R(2)=0·03, 95% CI 0·00-0·25) and OS (R(2)=0·24, 0·00-0·70). Patients who attain pathological complete response defined as ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0 have improved survival. The prognostic value is greatest in aggressive tumour subtypes. Our pooled analysis could not validate pathological complete response as a surrogate endpoint for improved EFS and OS. US Food and Drug Administration. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 1674 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors.

Richard L. Wahl, Heather Jacene, Yvette Kasamon … (2009)

The purpose of this article is to review the status and limitations of anatomic tumor response metrics including the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and RECIST 1.1. This article also reviews qualitative and quantitative approaches to metabolic tumor response assessment with (18)F-FDG PET and proposes a draft framework for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST), version 1.0. PubMed searches, including searches for the terms RECIST, positron, WHO, FDG, cancer (including specific types), treatment response, region of interest, and derivative references, were performed. Abstracts and articles judged most relevant to the goals of this report were reviewed with emphasis on limitations and strengths of the anatomic and PET approaches to treatment response assessment. On the basis of these data and the authors' experience, draft criteria were formulated for PET tumor response to treatment. Approximately 3,000 potentially relevant references were screened. Anatomic imaging alone using standard WHO, RECIST, and RECIST 1.1 criteria is widely applied but still has limitations in response assessments. For example, despite effective treatment, changes in tumor size can be minimal in tumors such as lymphomas, sarcoma, hepatomas, mesothelioma, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor. CT tumor density, contrast enhancement, or MRI characteristics appear more informative than size but are not yet routinely applied. RECIST criteria may show progression of tumor more slowly than WHO criteria. RECIST 1.1 criteria (assessing a maximum of 5 tumor foci, vs. 10 in RECIST) result in a higher complete response rate than the original RECIST criteria, at least in lymph nodes. Variability appears greater in assessing progression than in assessing response. Qualitative and quantitative approaches to (18)F-FDG PET response assessment have been applied and require a consistent PET methodology to allow quantitative assessments. Statistically significant changes in tumor standardized uptake value (SUV) occur in careful test-retest studies of high-SUV tumors, with a change of 20% in SUV of a region 1 cm or larger in diameter; however, medically relevant beneficial changes are often associated with a 30% or greater decline. The more extensive the therapy, the greater the decline in SUV with most effective treatments. Important components of the proposed PERCIST criteria include assessing normal reference tissue values in a 3-cm-diameter region of interest in the liver, using a consistent PET protocol, using a fixed small region of interest about 1 cm(3) in volume (1.2-cm diameter) in the most active region of metabolically active tumors to minimize statistical variability, assessing tumor size, treating SUV lean measurements in the 1 (up to 5 optional) most metabolically active tumor focus as a continuous variable, requiring a 30% decline in SUV for "response," and deferring to RECIST 1.1 in cases that do not have (18)F-FDG avidity or are technically unsuitable. Criteria to define progression of tumor-absent new lesions are uncertain but are proposed. Anatomic imaging alone using standard WHO, RECIST, and RECIST 1.1 criteria have limitations, particularly in assessing the activity of newer cancer therapies that stabilize disease, whereas (18)F-FDG PET appears particularly valuable in such cases. The proposed PERCIST 1.0 criteria should serve as a starting point for use in clinical trials and in structured quantitative clinical reporting. Undoubtedly, subsequent revisions and enhancements will be required as validation studies are undertaken in varying diseases and treatments.

0 comments Cited 972 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Refinement of the Lugano Classification lymphoma response criteria in the era of immunomodulatory therapy

Bruce D Cheson, Stephen Ansell, Larry Schwartz … (2016)

Uniformly adopted response criteria are essential for assessment of therapies incorporating conventional chemotherapy and chemoimmunotherapy regimens. Recently, immunomodulatory agents, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, have demonstrated impressive activity in a broad range of lymphoma histologies. However, these agents may be associated with clinical and imaging findings during treatment suggestive of progressive disease (PD) despite evidence of clinical benefit (eg, tumor flare or pseudo-progression). Considering this finding as PD could lead to patients being prematurely removed from a treatment from which they actually stand to benefit. This phenomenon has been well described with checkpoint blockade therapy in solid tumors and anecdotally seen in lymphoma as well. To address this issue in the context of lymphoma immunomodulatory therapy, a workshop was convened to provide provisional recommendations to modify current response criteria in patients receiving these and future agents in clinical trials. The term "indeterminate response" was introduced to identify such lesions until confirmed as flare/pseudo-progression or true PD by either biopsy or subsequent imaging.

0 comments Cited 159 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Title: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Abbreviated Title: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging

Publisher: Springer Nature

ISSN (Print): 1619-7070

ISSN (Electronic): 1619-7089

Publication date Created: August 2017

Publication date (Electronic): March 30 2017

Publication date (Print): August 2017

Volume: 44

Issue: S1

Pages: 55-66

Article

DOI: 10.1007/s00259-017-3687-3

PMC ID: 5542859

PubMed ID: 28361188

SO-VID: aa04e9dc-c399-4d42-90d2-41b20923569f

License:

http://www.springer.com/tdm

History

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

Cited by 52

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 1,284

See all reference authors

- Version 1