Evaluation of the optimal number of lesions needed for tumor evaluation using the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group investigation

Shauna L. Hillman, Ming Wen An, Michael J. O'Connell, Richard M. Goldberg, Paul Schaefer, Jan Craig Buckner, Daniel J. Sargent

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: In February 2000, the criteria for measuring tumor shrinkage as an indicator of antitumor activity were redefined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). This resulted in simplifying bidimensional to unidimensional measurement of lesions. Under RECIST, all lesions, up to 10, must be measured. Scanning and measuring multiple lesions is costly, time-consuming, and a disincentive to participation in clinical trials. We investigated whether fewer than 10 lesions can be measured without compromising the accuracy of assessing a regimen's activity. Patients and Methods: Thirty-two North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials including 2,374 patients were analyzed. Twelve studies were conducted before RECIST; 20 were conducted post-RECIST. Agreement between objective status by cycle, confirmed response, overall response rate, and time to progression (TTP) was evaluated based on all 10 versus the largest one through five lesions. Results: The median number of lesions reported on RECIST trials did not differ from pre-RECIST trials (median = 2.0). One lesion at baseline was reported in 49% of patients, two lesions in 28% of patients, three lesions in 12% of patients, four lesions in 6% of patients, and five lesions in 5% of patients in post-RECIST trials. Utilizing the largest two lesions produced excellent concordance with that using all lesions for all end points. In no trial did the overall response rate differ by more than 3% when two versus all lesions were considered. Evaluating more than two lesions did not significantly improve agreement. Conclusion: Based on these trials, the assessment of more than two lesions did not alter the conclusions regarding a treatment's efficacy as judged by response rate or TTP.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3205-3210
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume27
Issue number19
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2009

Fingerprint

Neoplasms
Therapeutics
Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
Motivation
Clinical Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Evaluation of the optimal number of lesions needed for tumor evaluation using the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors : A North Central Cancer Treatment Group investigation. / Hillman, Shauna L.; An, Ming Wen; O'Connell, Michael J.; Goldberg, Richard M.; Schaefer, Paul; Buckner, Jan Craig; Sargent, Daniel J.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 27, No. 19, 01.07.2009, p. 3205-3210.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hillman, Shauna L. ; An, Ming Wen ; O'Connell, Michael J. ; Goldberg, Richard M. ; Schaefer, Paul ; Buckner, Jan Craig ; Sargent, Daniel J. / Evaluation of the optimal number of lesions needed for tumor evaluation using the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors : A North Central Cancer Treatment Group investigation. In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2009 ; Vol. 27, No. 19. pp. 3205-3210.
@article{1ee0d6e3f67e47e8b69ab7bffbc04a42,
title = "Evaluation of the optimal number of lesions needed for tumor evaluation using the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group investigation",
abstract = "Purpose: In February 2000, the criteria for measuring tumor shrinkage as an indicator of antitumor activity were redefined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). This resulted in simplifying bidimensional to unidimensional measurement of lesions. Under RECIST, all lesions, up to 10, must be measured. Scanning and measuring multiple lesions is costly, time-consuming, and a disincentive to participation in clinical trials. We investigated whether fewer than 10 lesions can be measured without compromising the accuracy of assessing a regimen's activity. Patients and Methods: Thirty-two North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials including 2,374 patients were analyzed. Twelve studies were conducted before RECIST; 20 were conducted post-RECIST. Agreement between objective status by cycle, confirmed response, overall response rate, and time to progression (TTP) was evaluated based on all 10 versus the largest one through five lesions. Results: The median number of lesions reported on RECIST trials did not differ from pre-RECIST trials (median = 2.0). One lesion at baseline was reported in 49{\%} of patients, two lesions in 28{\%} of patients, three lesions in 12{\%} of patients, four lesions in 6{\%} of patients, and five lesions in 5{\%} of patients in post-RECIST trials. Utilizing the largest two lesions produced excellent concordance with that using all lesions for all end points. In no trial did the overall response rate differ by more than 3{\%} when two versus all lesions were considered. Evaluating more than two lesions did not significantly improve agreement. Conclusion: Based on these trials, the assessment of more than two lesions did not alter the conclusions regarding a treatment's efficacy as judged by response rate or TTP.",
author = "Hillman, {Shauna L.} and An, {Ming Wen} and O'Connell, {Michael J.} and Goldberg, {Richard M.} and Paul Schaefer and Buckner, {Jan Craig} and Sargent, {Daniel J.}",
year = "2009",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1200/JCO.2008.18.3269",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "3205--3210",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "19",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of the optimal number of lesions needed for tumor evaluation using the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors

T2 - A North Central Cancer Treatment Group investigation

AU - Hillman, Shauna L.

AU - An, Ming Wen

AU - O'Connell, Michael J.

AU - Goldberg, Richard M.

AU - Schaefer, Paul

AU - Buckner, Jan Craig

AU - Sargent, Daniel J.

PY - 2009/7/1

Y1 - 2009/7/1

N2 - Purpose: In February 2000, the criteria for measuring tumor shrinkage as an indicator of antitumor activity were redefined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). This resulted in simplifying bidimensional to unidimensional measurement of lesions. Under RECIST, all lesions, up to 10, must be measured. Scanning and measuring multiple lesions is costly, time-consuming, and a disincentive to participation in clinical trials. We investigated whether fewer than 10 lesions can be measured without compromising the accuracy of assessing a regimen's activity. Patients and Methods: Thirty-two North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials including 2,374 patients were analyzed. Twelve studies were conducted before RECIST; 20 were conducted post-RECIST. Agreement between objective status by cycle, confirmed response, overall response rate, and time to progression (TTP) was evaluated based on all 10 versus the largest one through five lesions. Results: The median number of lesions reported on RECIST trials did not differ from pre-RECIST trials (median = 2.0). One lesion at baseline was reported in 49% of patients, two lesions in 28% of patients, three lesions in 12% of patients, four lesions in 6% of patients, and five lesions in 5% of patients in post-RECIST trials. Utilizing the largest two lesions produced excellent concordance with that using all lesions for all end points. In no trial did the overall response rate differ by more than 3% when two versus all lesions were considered. Evaluating more than two lesions did not significantly improve agreement. Conclusion: Based on these trials, the assessment of more than two lesions did not alter the conclusions regarding a treatment's efficacy as judged by response rate or TTP.

AB - Purpose: In February 2000, the criteria for measuring tumor shrinkage as an indicator of antitumor activity were redefined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). This resulted in simplifying bidimensional to unidimensional measurement of lesions. Under RECIST, all lesions, up to 10, must be measured. Scanning and measuring multiple lesions is costly, time-consuming, and a disincentive to participation in clinical trials. We investigated whether fewer than 10 lesions can be measured without compromising the accuracy of assessing a regimen's activity. Patients and Methods: Thirty-two North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials including 2,374 patients were analyzed. Twelve studies were conducted before RECIST; 20 were conducted post-RECIST. Agreement between objective status by cycle, confirmed response, overall response rate, and time to progression (TTP) was evaluated based on all 10 versus the largest one through five lesions. Results: The median number of lesions reported on RECIST trials did not differ from pre-RECIST trials (median = 2.0). One lesion at baseline was reported in 49% of patients, two lesions in 28% of patients, three lesions in 12% of patients, four lesions in 6% of patients, and five lesions in 5% of patients in post-RECIST trials. Utilizing the largest two lesions produced excellent concordance with that using all lesions for all end points. In no trial did the overall response rate differ by more than 3% when two versus all lesions were considered. Evaluating more than two lesions did not significantly improve agreement. Conclusion: Based on these trials, the assessment of more than two lesions did not alter the conclusions regarding a treatment's efficacy as judged by response rate or TTP.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67650327605&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67650327605&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.3269

DO - 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.3269

M3 - Article

C2 - 19414682

AN - SCOPUS:67650327605

VL - 27

SP - 3205

EP - 3210

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 19

ER -