New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)

E. A. Eisenhauer, P. Therasse, J. Bogaerts, L. H. Schwartz, D. Sargent, R. Ford, J. Dancey, S. Arbuck, S. Gwyther, M. Mooney, L. Rubinstein, L. Shankar, L. Dodd, R. Kaplan, D. Lacombe, J. Verweij

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10799 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. Highlights of revised RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of ≥15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10 mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5 mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. Future work: A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)228-247
Number of pages20
JournalEuropean Journal of Cancer
Volume45
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2009

Fingerprint

Guidelines
Tumor Burden
Disease Progression
Patient Simulation
Neoplasms
Validation Studies
Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
Positron-Emission Tomography
Industry
Lymph Nodes
Research Personnel
Clinical Trials
Databases
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Guidelines
  • Response criteria
  • Solid tumours

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Eisenhauer, E. A., Therasse, P., Bogaerts, J., Schwartz, L. H., Sargent, D., Ford, R., ... Verweij, J. (2009). New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). European Journal of Cancer, 45(2), 228-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026

New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours : Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). / Eisenhauer, E. A.; Therasse, P.; Bogaerts, J.; Schwartz, L. H.; Sargent, D.; Ford, R.; Dancey, J.; Arbuck, S.; Gwyther, S.; Mooney, M.; Rubinstein, L.; Shankar, L.; Dodd, L.; Kaplan, R.; Lacombe, D.; Verweij, J.

In: European Journal of Cancer, Vol. 45, No. 2, 01.2009, p. 228-247.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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 2009, 'New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)', European Journal of Cancer, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 228-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). European Journal of Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
Eisenhauer, E. A. ; Therasse, P. ; Bogaerts, J. ; Schwartz, L. H. ; 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). In: European Journal of Cancer. 2009 ; Vol. 45, No. 2. pp. 228-247.
@article{7f9e8b9b03f247d3b7996a6ecf067d9c,
title = "New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)",
abstract = "Background: Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. Highlights of revised RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of ≥15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10 mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20{\%} increase in sum, a 5 mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. Future work: A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.",
keywords = "Guidelines, Response criteria, Solid tumours",
author = "Eisenhauer, {E. A.} and P. Therasse and J. Bogaerts and Schwartz, {L. H.} and D. Sargent and R. Ford and J. Dancey and S. Arbuck and S. Gwyther and M. Mooney and L. Rubinstein and L. Shankar and L. Dodd and R. Kaplan and D. Lacombe and J. Verweij",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "45",
pages = "228--247",
journal = "European Journal of Cancer",
issn = "0959-8049",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours

T2 - Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)

AU - Eisenhauer, E. A.

AU - Therasse, P.

AU - Bogaerts, J.

AU - Schwartz, L. H.

AU - Sargent, D.

AU - Ford, R.

AU - Dancey, J.

AU - Arbuck, S.

AU - Gwyther, S.

AU - Mooney, M.

AU - Rubinstein, L.

AU - Shankar, L.

AU - Dodd, L.

AU - Kaplan, R.

AU - Lacombe, D.

AU - Verweij, J.

PY - 2009/1

Y1 - 2009/1

N2 - Background: Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. Highlights of revised RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of ≥15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10 mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5 mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. Future work: A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.

AB - Background: Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. Highlights of revised RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of ≥15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10 mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5 mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. Future work: A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.

KW - Guidelines

KW - Response criteria

KW - Solid tumours

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=57849117384&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=57849117384&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026

DO - 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026

M3 - Article

C2 - 19097774

AN - SCOPUS:57849117384

VL - 45

SP - 228

EP - 247

JO - European Journal of Cancer

JF - European Journal of Cancer

SN - 0959-8049

IS - 2

ER -