期刊文献+

Comparison of RECIST version 1.0 and 1.1 in assessment of tumor response by computed tomography in advanced gastric cancer 被引量:42

Comparison of RECIST version 1.0 and 1.1 in assessment of tumor response by computed tomography in advanced gastric cancer
下载PDF
导出
摘要 Objective: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guideline version 1.0 (RECIST 1.0) was proposed as a new guideline for evaluating tumor response and has been widely accepted as a standardized measure. With a number of issues being raised on RECIST 1.0, however, a revised RECIST guideline version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) was proposed by the RECIST Working Group in 2009. This study was conducted to compare CT tumor response based on RECIST 1.1 vs. RECIST 1.0 in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Methods: We reviewed 61 AGC patients with measurable diseases by RECIST 1.0 who were enrolled in other clinical trials between 2008 and 2010. These patients were retrospectively re-analyzed to determine the concordance between the two response criteria using the κ statistic. Results: The number and sum of tumor diameters of the target lesions by RECIST 1.1 were significantly lower than those by RECIST 1.0 (P〈0.0001). However, there was excellent agreement in tumor response between RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 0(κ=0.844). The overall response rates (ORRs) according to RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 were 32.7% (20/61) and 34.5% (20/58), respectively. One patient with partial response (PR) based on RECIST 1.0 was reclassified as stable disease (SD) by RECIST 1.1. Of two patients with SD by RECIST 1.0, one was downgraded to progressive disease and the other was upgraded to PR by RECIST 1.1. Conclusions: RECIST 1.1 provided almost perfect agreement with RECIST 1.0 in the CT assessment of tumor response of AGC. Objective: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guideline version 1.0 (RECIST 1.0) was proposed as a new guideline for evaluating tumor response and has been widely accepted as a standardized measure. With a number of issues being raised on RECIST 1.0, however, a revised RECIST guideline version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) was proposed by the RECIST Working Group in 2009. This study was conducted to compare CT tumor response based on RECIST 1.1 vs. RECIST 1.0 in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Methods: We reviewed 61 AGC patients with measurable diseases by RECIST 1.0 who were enrolled in other clinical trials between 2008 and 2010. These patients were retrospectively re-analyzed to determine the concordance between the two response criteria using the κ statistic. Results: The number and sum of tumor diameters of the target lesions by RECIST 1.1 were significantly lower than those by RECIST 1.0 (P〈0.0001). However, there was excellent agreement in tumor response between RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 0(κ=0.844). The overall response rates (ORRs) according to RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 were 32.7% (20/61) and 34.5% (20/58), respectively. One patient with partial response (PR) based on RECIST 1.0 was reclassified as stable disease (SD) by RECIST 1.1. Of two patients with SD by RECIST 1.0, one was downgraded to progressive disease and the other was upgraded to PR by RECIST 1.1. Conclusions: RECIST 1.1 provided almost perfect agreement with RECIST 1.0 in the CT assessment of tumor response of AGC.
出处 《Chinese Journal of Cancer Research》 SCIE CAS CSCD 2013年第6期689-694,共6页 中国癌症研究(英文版)
关键词 Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guideline version 1.0 (RECIST 1.0) ResponseEvaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guideline version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) gastric cancer tumor response Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guideline version 1.0 (RECIST 1.0) ResponseEvaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guideline version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) gastric cancer tumor response
  • 引文网络
  • 相关文献

参考文献13

  • 1Eisenhauer EA,Therasse P,BogaertsJ. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours:revised RECIST guideline (version,1.1)[J].{H}European Journal of Cancer,2009.228-247.
  • 2Therasse P,Arbuck SG,Eisenhauer EA. 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].{H}JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE,2000.205-216.
  • 3Nishino M,Jagannathan JP,Ramaiya NH. Revised RECIST guideline version,1.1:what oncologists want to know and what raidologists need to know[J].{H}AJR American Journal of Roentgenology,2010.281-289.
  • 4Moskowitz CS,Jia X,Schwartz LH. A simulation study to evaluate the impact of the number of lesions measured on response assessment[J].{H}EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER,2009.300-310.
  • 5Sargent DJ,Rubinstein L,Schwartz L. Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial endpoints[J].{H}European Journal of Cancer,2009.290-299.
  • 6Bogaerts J,Ford R,Sargent D. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria[J].{H}European Journal of Cancer,2009.248-260.
  • 7Schwartz LH,Bogaerts J,Ford R. Evaluation of lymph nodes with RECIST,1.1[J].{H}EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER,2009.261-267.
  • 8DanceyJE,Dodd LE,Ford R. Recommendations for the assessment of progression in randomized cancer treatment trials[J].{H}EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER,2009.281-289.
  • 9Sun JM,Ahn MJ,Park MJ. Accuracy of RECIST,1.1 for non-small cell lung cancer treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors[J].{H}Lung Cancer,2010.105-109.
  • 10Nishino M,Jackman DM,Hatabu H. New Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) Guidelines for advanced non-small cell lung cancer:comparison with original RECIST and impact on assessment of tumor response to target therapy[J].{H}AJR American Journal of Roentgenology,2010.W221-W228.

同被引文献286

引证文献42

二级引证文献527

;
使用帮助 返回顶部