Response criteria for glioma (original) (raw)

Abstract

The current method for assessing the response to therapy of glial tumors was described by Macdonald et al. in 1990. Under this paradigm, response categorization is determined on the basis of changes in the cross-sectional area of a tumor on neuroimaging, coupled with clinical assessment of neurological status and corticosteroid utilization. These categories of response have certain limitations; for example, cross-sectional assessment is not as accurate as volumetric assessment, which is now feasible. Disentangling antitumor effects of therapies from their effects on blood–brain barrier permeability can be challenging. The use of insufficient response criteria might be overestimating the true benefits of drugs in early-stage studies, and, therefore, such therapies could mistakenly move forward into later phases, only to result in disappointment when overall survival is measured. We propose that studies report both radiographic and clinical response rates, use volumetric rather than cross-sectional area to measure lesion size, and incorporate findings from mechanistic imaging and blood biomarker studies more frequently, and also suggest that investigators recognize the limitations of imaging biomarkers as surrogate end points.

Key Points

• Volume rather than area measurements of tumor burden are now feasible and have less inter-observer variability
• Non-volumetric reasons for progression including rate of clinical worsening and steroid dosing should be routinely reported in describing the results of clinical trials
• Mechanistic biomarkers including imaging should be employed wherever posible, especially in early stage trials, to provide more meaning beyond response rates alone
• Resolution is possible for previously ambiguous aspects of response criteria including minimum lesion size, degree of neurological worsening, definition of what 50% change in size means, degree of enhancement, etc.
• The advent of new therapies such as antiangiogenic agents that directly affect tumor vessels and tumor enhancement require particular care in response evaluation. FLAIR and/or T2-weighted imaging should be used in addition to T1-weighted post-contrast images

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

$209.00 per year

only $17.42 per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

• Log in
• Learn about institutional subscriptions
• Read our FAQs
• Contact customer support

Similar content being viewed by others

References

1. The Online NewsHour (online 28 March 2007) Extended interview: Janet Woodcock discusses cancer biomarkers. [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june07/cancerwoodcock_ 03-28.html] (accessed 28 April 2007)
2. Woodcock J (online 5 May 2005) The Critical Path initiative: one year later. [http://www.fda.gov/cder/regulatory/medImaging/woodcock.ppt] (accessed 28 April 2007)
3. Johnson JR et al. (2003) End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs. J Clin Oncol 21: 1404–1411
   Article Google Scholar
4. Macdonald DR et al. (1990) Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 8: 1277–1280
   Article CAS Google Scholar
5. Brada M and Yung WK (2000) Clinical trial end points in malignant glioma: need for effective trial design strategy. Semin Oncol 27: 11–19
   CAS PubMed Google Scholar
6. Dempsey MF et al. (2005) Measurement of tumor “size” in recurrent malignant glioma: 1D, 2D, or 3D. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26: 770–776
   PubMed Google Scholar
7. Galanis E et al. (2006) Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: measurement by RECIST, two-dimensional, computer-assisted tumor area, and computer-assisted tumor volume methods. Neuro Oncol 8: 156–165
   Article Google Scholar
8. Grant R et al. (1997) Chemotherapy response criteria in malignant glioma. Neurology 48: 1336–1340
   Article CAS Google Scholar
9. Hess KR et al. (1999) Response and progression in recurrent malignant glioma. Neuro Oncol 1: 282–288
   Article CAS Google Scholar
10. Kaplan RS (1998) Complexities, pitfalls, and strategies for evaluating brain tumor therapies. Curr Opin Oncol 10: 175–178
    Article CAS Google Scholar
11. Shah GD et al. (2006) Comparison of linear and volumetric criteria in assessing tumor response in adult high-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol 8: 38–46
    Article Google Scholar
12. Vos MJ et al. (2003) Interobserver variability in the radiological assessment of response to chemotherapy in glioma. Neurology 60: 826–830
    Article CAS Google Scholar
13. Chamberlain MC (2006) MRI in patients with high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab and chemotherapy. Neurology 67: 2089
    Article Google Scholar
14. Pope WB et al. (2006) MRI in patients with high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab and chemotherapy. Neurology 66: 1258–1260
    Article CAS Google Scholar
15. Vredenburgh JJ et al. (2007) Phase II trial of bevacizumab and irinotecan in recurrent malignant glioma. Clin Cancer Res 13: 1253–1259
    Article CAS Google Scholar
16. Benner T et al. (2006) Comparison of manual and automatic section positioning of brain MR images. Radiology 239: 246–254
    Article Google Scholar
17. Therasse P et al. (2000) 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 92: 205–216
    Article CAS Google Scholar
18. Sorensen AG et al. (2001) Comparison of diameter and perimeter methods for tumor volume calculation. J Clin Oncol 19: 551–557
    Article CAS Google Scholar
19. Ballman KV et al. (2007) The relationship between six-month progression-free survival and 12-month overall survival end points for phase II trials in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Neuro Oncol 9: 29–38
    Article CAS Google Scholar
20. Fleming TR (2005) Surrogate endpoints and FDA's accelerated approval process. Health Aff (Millwood) 24: 67–78
    Article Google Scholar
21. Bruzzi P et al. (2005) Objective response to chemotherapy as a potential surrogate end point of survival in metastatic breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 23: 5117–5125
    Article Google Scholar
22. Kamb A et al. (2007) Why is cancer drug discovery so difficult. Nat Rev Drug Discov 6: 115–120
    Article CAS Google Scholar
23. Ostergaard L et al. (1999) Early changes measured by magnetic resonance imaging in cerebral blood flow, blood volume, and blood-brain barrier permeability following dexamethasone treatment in patients with brain tumors. J Neurosurg 90: 300–305
    Article CAS Google Scholar
24. Butowski NA et al. (2006) Diagnosis and treatment of recurrent high-grade astrocytoma. J Clin Oncol 24: 1273–1280
    Article CAS Google Scholar
25. Kumar AJ et al. (2000) Malignant gliomas: MR imaging spectrum of radiation therapy- and chemotherapy-induced necrosis of the brain after treatment. Radiology 217: 377–384
    Article CAS Google Scholar
26. Mullins ME et al. (2005) Radiation necrosis versus glioma recurrence: conventional MR imaging clues to diagnosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26: 1967–1972
    PubMed Google Scholar
27. Ricci PE et al. (1998) Differentiating recurrent tumor from radiation necrosis: time for re-evaluation of positron emission tomography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 19: 407–413
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
28. Batchelor TT et al. (2007) AZD2171, a pan-VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, normalizes tumor vasculature and alleviates edema in glioblastoma patients. Cancer Cell 11: 83–95
    Article CAS Google Scholar
29. Stark-Vance V (2005) Bevacizumab and CPT-11 in the treatment of relapsed malignant glioma [abstract # 369]. Neuro Oncol 7: 369
    Google Scholar
30. Jacobs AH et al. (2005) Imaging in neurooncology. NeuroRx 2: 333–347
    Article Google Scholar
31. Fleming TR and DeMets DL (1996) Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled. Ann Intern Med 125: 605–613
    Article CAS Google Scholar
32. Bagley CM Jr (2001) Measurement of brain tumor volumes by the perimeter method. J Clin Oncol 19: 3159–3160
    Article Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the US Public Health Service (grants M01-RR-01066, 1R21CA117079-01, 5T32CA009502-20, 5P41RR014075 and 5P01CA080124) and The MIND Institute. We wish to thank Craig Peterson for technical assistance, and Zariana Nikolova, Richard Parker, Wendy Hayes, and Steven Green for helpful discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Radiology, Department of Radiation Oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital, AG Sorensen is Associate Professor of Radiology, Havard Medical School, and Associate Professor of Health Sciences and Technology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Co-Director, AA Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, at Massachusettes General Hospital. TT Batchelor is Associate Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, and Executive Director, Stephen E and Catherine Pappas Center for Neuro-Oncology, Massachusettes General Hospital. PY Wen is Associate Professor of Neurology, Center for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School. RK Jain is Andrew Werk Cook Professor of Tumor Biology and Director of the Edwin L Steele Laboratory of Tumor Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.,
   A Gregory Sorensen, Tracy T Batchelor, Patrick Y Wen & Rakesh K Jain
2. W Zhang is Research Fellow, Neuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.,
   Wei-Ting Zhang

Authors

1. A Gregory Sorensen
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
2. Tracy T Batchelor
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
3. Patrick Y Wen
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
4. Wei-Ting Zhang
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
5. Rakesh K Jain
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toA Gregory Sorensen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

AG Sorensen has received research support from, is a consultant for, or has spoken on behalf of the following companies or organizations: ACR ImageMetrix, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Breakaway Imaging, Bayer–Schering, Eli Lilly, EPIX Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Genentech, General Electric Healthcare, Mitsubishi Pharma, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Northwest Biosciences, Pfizer, Schering–Plough, Siemens Medical Solutions, Takeda-Millennium and Thermal Technologies Inc. In addition, AG Sorensen has an equity position in and holds the position of Medical Advisor at EPIX Medical, a specialty pharmaceutical company the company is based in Cambridge, MA, USA, which is engaged in developing targeted contrast agents for cardiovascular MRI. TT Batchelor has spoken on behalf of Enzon and Schering–Plough. RK Jain is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Dyax and SynDevRx, and also receives research support from AstraZeneca and is a stockholder of SynDevRx. PY Wen receives research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Genentech, Novartis and Schering–Plough. W-T Zhang declared no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sorensen, A., Batchelor, T., Wen, P. et al. Response criteria for glioma.Nat Rev Clin Oncol 5, 634–644 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc1204

Download citation

• Received: 09 May 2007
• Accepted: 12 December 2007
• Published: 19 August 2008
• Issue Date: November 2008
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc1204