Advertisement

RECIST 1.1 – Standardisation and disease-specific adaptations: Perspectives from the RECIST Working Group

      Highlights

      • The level of evidence validate a new imaging biomarker as an end-point for a specific disease or in phase II trials is considerable.
      • This manuscript provides an overview of commonly described modifications of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) with level of evidence using Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine approach.
      • RECIST Working Group supports the evaluation and validation of novel biomarkers in cancer therapy and will work to incorporate into RECIST as the techniques and therapeutics become widely used and globally available.

      Abstract

      Radiologic imaging of disease sites plays a pivotal role in the management of patients with cancer. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), introduced in 2000, and modified in 2009, has become the de facto standard for assessment of response in solid tumours in patients on clinical trials.
      The RECIST Working Group considers the ability of the global oncology community to implement and adopt updates to RECIST in a timely manner to be critical. Updates to RECIST must be tested, validated and implemented in a standardised, methodical manner in response to therapeutic and imaging technology advances as well as experience gained by users. This was the case with the development of RECIST 1.1, where an expanded data warehouse was developed to test and validate modifications. Similar initiatives are ongoing, testing RECIST in the evaluation of response to non-cytotoxic agents, immunotherapies, as well as in specific diseases.
      The RECIST Working Group has previously outlined the level of evidence considered necessary to formally and fully validate new imaging markers as an appropriate end-point for clinical trials. Achieving the optimal level of evidence desired is a difficult feat for phase III trials; this involves a meta-analysis of multiple prospective, randomised multicentre clinical trials. The rationale for modifications should also be considered; the modifications may be proposed to improve surrogacy, to provide a more mechanistic imaging technique, or be designed to improve reproducibility of the imaging biomarker.
      Here, we present the commonly described modifications of RECIST, each of which is associated with different levels of evidence and validation.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to European Journal of Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Sargent D.J.
        • Rubinstein L.
        • Schwartz L.
        • Dancey J.E.
        • Gatsonis C.
        • Dodd L.E.
        • et al.
        Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points.
        Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 290-299
        • Liu Y.
        • Litière S.
        • de Vries E.G.
        • Sargent D.
        • Shankar L.
        • Bogaerts J.
        • et al.
        The role of response evaluation criteria in solid tumour in anticancer treatment evaluation: results of a survey in the oncology community.
        Eur J Cancer. 2014; 50: 260-266
      1. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine – Levels of evidence (March 2009), http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/ [accessed 14.03.16].

        • Scher H.I.
        • Halabi S.
        • Tannock I.
        • Morris M.
        • Sternberg C.N.
        • Carducci M.A.
        • et al.
        Design and end points of clinical trials for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone: recommendations of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group.
        J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 1148-1159
        • Pollen J.J.
        • Witztum K.F.
        • Ashburn W.L.
        The flare phenomenon on radionuclide bone scan in metastatic prostate cancer.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1984; 142: 773-776
        • Ryan C.J.
        • Smith M.R.
        • de Bono J.S.
        • Molina A.
        • Logothetis C.J.
        • de Souza P.
        • et al.
        Abiraterone in metastatic prostate cancer without previous chemotherapy.
        N Engl J Med. 2013; 368: 138-148
        • Scher H.I.
        • Fizazi K.
        • Saad F.
        • Taplin M.E.
        • Sternberg C.N.
        • Miller K.
        • et al.
        • AFFIRM Investigators
        Increased survival with enzalutamide in prostate cancer after chemotherapy.
        N Engl J Med. 2012; 367: 1187-1197
        • Parker C.
        • Nilsson S.
        • Heinrich D.
        • Helle S.I.
        • O'Sullivan J.M.
        • Fosså S.D.
        • et al.
        • ALSYMPCA Investigators
        Alpha emitter radium-223 and survival in metastatic prostate cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2013; 369: 213-223
        • Scher H.I.
        • Morris M.J.
        • Stadler W.M.
        • Higano C.
        • Basch E.
        • Fizazi K.
        • et al.
        Trial design and objectives for castration-resistant prostate cancer: updated recommendations from the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3.
        J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb 22; (pii: JCO642702. [Epub ahead of print])
        • Byrne M.J.
        • Nowak A.K.
        Modified RECIST criteria for assessment of response in malignant pleural mesothelioma.
        Ann Oncol. 2004; 15: 257-260
        • Cheson B.D.
        • Horning S.J.
        • Coiffier B.
        • Shipp M.A.
        • Fisher R.I.
        • Connors J.M.
        • et al.
        Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas.
        J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17: 1244-1253
        • Cheson B.D.
        • Pfistner B.
        • Juweid M.E.
        • Gascoyne R.D.
        • Specht L.
        • Horning S.J.
        • et al.
        • Harmonization Project on Lymphoma
        Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma.
        J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 579-586
        • Meignan M.
        • Barrington S.
        • Itti E.
        • Gallamini A.
        • Haioun C.
        • Polliack A.
        Report on the 4th International Workshop on Positron Emission Tomography in Lymphoma held in Menton, France, 3-5 October 2012.
        Leuk Lymphoma. 2014; 55: 31-37
        • Barrington S.F.
        • Qian W.
        • Somer E.J.
        • Franceschetto A.
        • Bagni B.
        • Brun E.
        • et al.
        Concordance between four European centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicentre trials in Hodgkin lymphoma.
        Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010; 37: 1824-1833
        • Barrington S.F.
        • Mikhaeel N.G.
        • Kostakoglu L.
        • Meignan M.
        • Hutchings M.
        • Müeller S.P.
        • et al.
        Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group.
        J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 3048-3058
        • Hoos A.
        • Parmiani G.
        • Hege K.
        • Sznol M.
        • Loibner H.
        • Eggermont A.
        • et al.
        A clinical development paradigm for cancer vaccines and related biologics.
        J Immunother. 2007; 30: 1-15
        • Wolchok J.D.
        • Hoos A.
        • O'Day S.
        • Weber J.S.
        • Hamid O.
        • Lebbé C.
        • et al.
        Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-related response criteria.
        Clin Cancer Res. 2009; 15: 7412-7420
        • Macdonald D.R.
        • Cascino T.L.
        • Schold Jr., S.C.
        • Cairncross J.G.
        Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma.
        J Clin Oncol. 1990; 8: 1277-1280
        • Wen P.Y.
        • Macdonald D.R.
        • Reardon D.A.
        • Cloughesy T.F.
        • Sorensen A.G.
        • Galanis E.
        • et al.
        Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group.
        J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 1963-1972
        • Lin N.U.
        • Lee E.Q.
        • Aoyama H.
        • Barani I.J.
        • Barboriak D.P.
        • Baumert B.G.
        • et al.
        Proposed response assessment criteria for brain metastases: Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group.
        Lancet Oncol. 2015; 16: e270-e278
        • Bruix J.
        • Sherman M.
        • Llovet J.M.
        • Beaugrand M.
        • Lencioni R.
        • Burroughs A.K.
        • et al.
        • EASL Panel of Experts on HCC
        Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference.
        J Hepatol. 2001; 35: 421-430
        • Bruix J.
        • Sherman M.
        • Practice Guidelines Committee, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases
        Management of hepatocellular carcinoma.
        Hepatology. 2005; 42: 1208-1236