The role of response evaluation criteria in solid tumour in anticancer treatment evaluation: Results of a survey in the oncology community

Yan Liu, Saskia Litière, Elisabeth Ge De Vries, Daniel Sargent, Lalitha Shankar, Jan Bogaerts, Lesley Seymour

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose With the increasing use of novel targeted agents and the development of high imaging techniques, response evaluation criteria in solid tumour (RECIST) 1.1 developed primarily for cytotoxic agents and anatomic imaging, has demonstrated limitations. A survey was conducted of RECIST users to identify concerns and their suggestions for future RECIST criteria. Methods 140 key partners of the RECIST collaboration were asked to complete a questionnaire. The 49 questions concerned (a) satisfaction and concerns with RECIST 1.1; (b) use of modified RECIST criteria and (c) suggestions for the next RECIST Version. Results Sixty-five replies were received. 52.3% responders were satisfied with RECIST 1.1, while 10.8% indicated dissatisfaction. Areas of potential weakness included: (a) lack of incorporation of potential early indicators of response such as functional imaging, (b) lack of validation in rarer tumour types and (c) lack of validation for novel (targeted) agents. Suggestions were multiple, with highest numbers on two points: developing sub-criteria for certain disease types and including advanced imaging techniques for the evaluation. Conclusions Constructive suggestions were received for optimising the next version. Ongoing data collection will make it possible to investigate the possible utilisation of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging in tumour assessment, to verify whether RECIST is/can still be applicable in novel targeted therapy and to consider the need for criteria for specific disease types.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)260-266
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean Journal of Cancer
Volume50
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2014

Fingerprint

Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
Surveys and Questionnaires
Cytotoxins
Positron-Emission Tomography
Neoplasms
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Advanced MR techniques
  • FDG-PET
  • RECIST
  • Targeted agents
  • Tumour assessment criteria

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

The role of response evaluation criteria in solid tumour in anticancer treatment evaluation : Results of a survey in the oncology community. / Liu, Yan; Litière, Saskia; De Vries, Elisabeth Ge; Sargent, Daniel; Shankar, Lalitha; Bogaerts, Jan; Seymour, Lesley.

In: European Journal of Cancer, Vol. 50, No. 2, 01.2014, p. 260-266.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Liu, Yan ; Litière, Saskia ; De Vries, Elisabeth Ge ; Sargent, Daniel ; Shankar, Lalitha ; Bogaerts, Jan ; Seymour, Lesley. / The role of response evaluation criteria in solid tumour in anticancer treatment evaluation : Results of a survey in the oncology community. In: European Journal of Cancer. 2014 ; Vol. 50, No. 2. pp. 260-266.
@article{d512c12046fd40f386266ccf50993d65,
title = "The role of response evaluation criteria in solid tumour in anticancer treatment evaluation: Results of a survey in the oncology community",
abstract = "Purpose With the increasing use of novel targeted agents and the development of high imaging techniques, response evaluation criteria in solid tumour (RECIST) 1.1 developed primarily for cytotoxic agents and anatomic imaging, has demonstrated limitations. A survey was conducted of RECIST users to identify concerns and their suggestions for future RECIST criteria. Methods 140 key partners of the RECIST collaboration were asked to complete a questionnaire. The 49 questions concerned (a) satisfaction and concerns with RECIST 1.1; (b) use of modified RECIST criteria and (c) suggestions for the next RECIST Version. Results Sixty-five replies were received. 52.3{\%} responders were satisfied with RECIST 1.1, while 10.8{\%} indicated dissatisfaction. Areas of potential weakness included: (a) lack of incorporation of potential early indicators of response such as functional imaging, (b) lack of validation in rarer tumour types and (c) lack of validation for novel (targeted) agents. Suggestions were multiple, with highest numbers on two points: developing sub-criteria for certain disease types and including advanced imaging techniques for the evaluation. Conclusions Constructive suggestions were received for optimising the next version. Ongoing data collection will make it possible to investigate the possible utilisation of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging in tumour assessment, to verify whether RECIST is/can still be applicable in novel targeted therapy and to consider the need for criteria for specific disease types.",
keywords = "Advanced MR techniques, FDG-PET, RECIST, Targeted agents, Tumour assessment criteria",
author = "Yan Liu and Saskia Liti{\`e}re and {De Vries}, {Elisabeth Ge} and Daniel Sargent and Lalitha Shankar and Jan Bogaerts and Lesley Seymour",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejca.2013.10.011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "50",
pages = "260--266",
journal = "European Journal of Cancer",
issn = "0959-8049",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The role of response evaluation criteria in solid tumour in anticancer treatment evaluation

T2 - Results of a survey in the oncology community

AU - Liu, Yan

AU - Litière, Saskia

AU - De Vries, Elisabeth Ge

AU - Sargent, Daniel

AU - Shankar, Lalitha

AU - Bogaerts, Jan

AU - Seymour, Lesley

PY - 2014/1

Y1 - 2014/1

N2 - Purpose With the increasing use of novel targeted agents and the development of high imaging techniques, response evaluation criteria in solid tumour (RECIST) 1.1 developed primarily for cytotoxic agents and anatomic imaging, has demonstrated limitations. A survey was conducted of RECIST users to identify concerns and their suggestions for future RECIST criteria. Methods 140 key partners of the RECIST collaboration were asked to complete a questionnaire. The 49 questions concerned (a) satisfaction and concerns with RECIST 1.1; (b) use of modified RECIST criteria and (c) suggestions for the next RECIST Version. Results Sixty-five replies were received. 52.3% responders were satisfied with RECIST 1.1, while 10.8% indicated dissatisfaction. Areas of potential weakness included: (a) lack of incorporation of potential early indicators of response such as functional imaging, (b) lack of validation in rarer tumour types and (c) lack of validation for novel (targeted) agents. Suggestions were multiple, with highest numbers on two points: developing sub-criteria for certain disease types and including advanced imaging techniques for the evaluation. Conclusions Constructive suggestions were received for optimising the next version. Ongoing data collection will make it possible to investigate the possible utilisation of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging in tumour assessment, to verify whether RECIST is/can still be applicable in novel targeted therapy and to consider the need for criteria for specific disease types.

AB - Purpose With the increasing use of novel targeted agents and the development of high imaging techniques, response evaluation criteria in solid tumour (RECIST) 1.1 developed primarily for cytotoxic agents and anatomic imaging, has demonstrated limitations. A survey was conducted of RECIST users to identify concerns and their suggestions for future RECIST criteria. Methods 140 key partners of the RECIST collaboration were asked to complete a questionnaire. The 49 questions concerned (a) satisfaction and concerns with RECIST 1.1; (b) use of modified RECIST criteria and (c) suggestions for the next RECIST Version. Results Sixty-five replies were received. 52.3% responders were satisfied with RECIST 1.1, while 10.8% indicated dissatisfaction. Areas of potential weakness included: (a) lack of incorporation of potential early indicators of response such as functional imaging, (b) lack of validation in rarer tumour types and (c) lack of validation for novel (targeted) agents. Suggestions were multiple, with highest numbers on two points: developing sub-criteria for certain disease types and including advanced imaging techniques for the evaluation. Conclusions Constructive suggestions were received for optimising the next version. Ongoing data collection will make it possible to investigate the possible utilisation of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging in tumour assessment, to verify whether RECIST is/can still be applicable in novel targeted therapy and to consider the need for criteria for specific disease types.

KW - Advanced MR techniques

KW - FDG-PET

KW - RECIST

KW - Targeted agents

KW - Tumour assessment criteria

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84891825549&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84891825549&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.10.011

DO - 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.10.011

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84891825549

VL - 50

SP - 260

EP - 266

JO - European Journal of Cancer

JF - European Journal of Cancer

SN - 0959-8049

IS - 2

ER -