Objective response rate assessment in oncology: Current situation and future expectations

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

The tumor objective response rate (ORR) is an important parameter to demonstrate the efficacy of a treatment in oncology. The ORR is valuable for clinical decision making in routine practice and a significant end-point for reporting the results of clinical trials. World Health Organization and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are anatomic response criteria developed mainly for cytotoxic chemotherapy. These criteria are based on the visual assessment of tumor size in morphological images provided by computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging. Anatomic response criteria may not be optimal for biologic agents, some disease sites, and some regional therapies. Consequently, modifications of RECIST, Choi criteria and Morphologic response criteria were developed based on the concept of the evaluation of viable tumors. Despite its limitations, RECIST v1.1 is validated in prospective studies, is widely accepted by regulatory agencies and has recently shown good performance for targeted cancer agents. Finally, some alternatives of RECIST were developed as immune-specific response criteria for checkpoint inhibitors. Immune RECIST criteria are based essentially on defining true progressive disease after a confirmatory imaging. Some graphical methods may be useful to show longitudinal change in the tumor burden over time. Tumor tissue is a tridimensional heterogenous mass, and tumor shrinkage is not always symmetrical; thus, metabolic response assessments using positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/CT may reflect the viability of cancer cells or functional changes evolving after anticancer treatments. The metabolic response can show the benefit of a treatment earlier than anatomic shrinkage, possibly preventing delays in drug approval. Computer-assisted automated volumetric assessments, quantitative multimodality imaging in radiology, new tracers in nuclear medicine and finally artificial intelligence have great potential in future evaluations.

Related collections

Most cited references 105

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 907 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III study.

Leonard Saltz, Stephen Clarke, Eduardo Díaz-Rubio … (2008)

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab when added to first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (either capecitabine plus oxaliplatin [XELOX] or fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin [FOLFOX-4]) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). Patients with MCRC were randomly assigned, in a 2 x 2 factorial design, to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to bevacizumab versus placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). A total of 1,401 patients were randomly assigned in this 2 x 2 analysis. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months in the bevacizumab group and 8.0 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 97.5% CI, 0.72 to 0.95; P = .0023). Median overall survival was 21.3 months in the bevacizumab group and 19.9 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.89; 97.5% CI, 0.76 to 1.03; P = .077). Response rates were similar in both arms. Analysis of treatment withdrawals showed that, despite protocol allowance of treatment continuation until disease progression, only 29% and 47% of bevacizumab and placebo recipients, respectively, were treated until progression. The toxicity profile of bevacizumab was consistent with that documented in previous trials. The addition of bevacizumab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy significantly improved PFS in this first-line trial in patients with MCRC. Overall survival differences did not reach statistical significance, and response rate was not improved by the addition of bevacizumab. Treatment continuation until disease progression may be necessary in order to optimize the contribution of bevacizumab to therapy.

0 comments Cited 728 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Reporting results of cancer treatment.

A Miller, B Hoogstraten, M. Staquet … (1981)

On the initiative of the World Health Organization, two meetings on the Standardization of Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment have been held with representatives and members of several organizations. Recommendations have been developed for standardized approaches to the recording of baseline data relating to the patient, the tumor, laboratory and radiologic data, the reporting of treatment, grading of acute and subacute toxicity, reporting of response, recurrence and disease-free interval, and reporting results of therapy. These recommendations, already endorsed by a number of organizations, are proposed for international acceptance and use to make it possible for investigators to compare validly their results with those of others.

0 comments Cited 502 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Nuri Faruk Aykan

Tahsin Özatlı

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): World J Clin Oncol

Journal ID (publisher-id): WJCO

Title: World Journal of Clinical Oncology

Publisher: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc

ISSN (Electronic): 2218-4333

Publication date (Print): 24 February 2020

Publication date (Electronic): 24 February 2020

Volume: 11

Issue: 2

Pages: 53-73

Affiliations

Department of Medical Oncology, Istinye University Medical School, Bahcesehir Liv Hospital, Istanbul 34510, Turkey. nfaruk@ 123456mac.com

Department of Medical Oncology, Istinye University Medical School, Bahcesehir Liv Hospital, Istanbul 34510, Turkey

Author notes

Author contributions: Aykan NF and Özatlı T performed the literature search; and Aykan NF wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author: Nuri Faruk Aykan, MD, Professor, Department of Medical Oncology, Istinye University Medical School, Bahcesehir Liv Hospital, Atatürk Bulvarı, No. 6, Istanbul 34510, Turkey. nfaruk@ 123456mac.com

Article

Other ID: jWJCO.v11.i2.pg53

DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v11.i2.53

PMC ID: 7046919

PubMed ID: 32133275

SO-VID: feb90baa-0108-42b4-b653-17e0581ccd0f

License:

This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.

History

Date received : 5 May 2019

Date revision received : 5 November 2019

Date accepted : 28 November 2019

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 24

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 1,992

See all reference authors

Objective response rate assessment in oncology: Current situation and future expectations

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Karger: Oncology

Most cited references 105

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

Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III study.

Reporting results of cancer treatment.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 51

Cited by 24

Most referenced authors 1,992