RECIST 1.1-Update and clarification: From the RECIST committee - PubMed (original) (raw)

doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.03.081. Epub 2016 May 14.

Saskia Litière 2, Elisabeth de Vries 3, Robert Ford 4, Stephen Gwyther 5, Sumithra Mandrekar 6, Lalitha Shankar 7, Jan Bogaerts 2, Alice Chen 8, Janet Dancey 9, Wendy Hayes 10, F Stephen Hodi 11, Otto S Hoekstra 12, Erich P Huang 13, Nancy Lin 11, Yan Liu 2, Patrick Therasse 14, Jedd D Wolchok 15, Lesley Seymour 9

Affiliations

RECIST 1.1-Update and clarification: From the RECIST committee

Lawrence H Schwartz et al. Eur J Cancer. 2016 Jul.

Abstract

The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) were developed and published in 2000, based on the original World Health Organisation guidelines first published in 1981. In 2009, revisions were made (RECIST 1.1) incorporating major changes, including a reduction in the number of lesions to be assessed, a new measurement method to classify lymph nodes as pathologic or normal, the clarification of the requirement to confirm a complete response or partial response and new methodologies for more appropriate measurement of disease progression. The purpose of this paper was to summarise the questions posed and the clarifications provided as an update to the 2009 publication.

Keywords: Clarifications; RECIST; Tumour response.

Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest statement: Author and all other co-authors: none relevant

Figures

Fig 1

Fig 1

Note optimal manner for measuring the short axis of coalescing lymph nodes (blue arrow). At baseline, there are two distinct nodes, therefore the short axis is measured for each (red and yellow lines) and at cycle 6 the single short axis of the coalesced node is now measured as a single line (red).

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Patient with colorectal cancer. Liver metastases at baseline (red circle) appear to resolved at cycle 3 with “reappearance” at cycle 5 (red circle). However, notice that the imaging techniques are different and the cycle 3 is of poor image quality to visualize these metastases. Therefore, these lesions have not truly reappeared and the patient should not be considered to have progressive disease at cycle 5. There is true progression at cycle 7.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47:207–14. - PubMed
    1. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, Verweij J, Van Glabbeke M, van Oosterom AT, Christian MC, Gwyther SG. 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. 2000;92:205–16. - PubMed
    1. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, Mooney M, Rubinstein L, Shankar L, Dodd L, Kaplan R, Lacombe D, Verweij J. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1) Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47. - PubMed
    1. Janku F, Berry DA, Gong J, Parsons HA, Stewart DJ, Kurzrock R. Outcomes of phase II clinical trials with single-agent therapies in advanced/metastatic non–small cell lung cancer published between 2000 and 2009. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:6356–63. - PubMed
    1. http://www.rsna.org/uploadedFiles/RSNA/Content/Science\_and\_Education/QIBA/QIBA\_CT%20Vol\_TumorVolumeChangeProfile\_v2.2\_PubliclyReviewedVersion\_08AUG2012.pdf

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources