European Journal of Cancer
Volume 45, Issue 2 , Pages 228-247 , January 2009

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

  • E.A. Eisenhauer

      Affiliations

    • National Cancer Institute of Canada – Clinical Trials Group, 10 Stuart Street, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Tel.: +1 613 533 6430; fax: +1 613 533 2411.
    • ,
  • P. Therasse

      Affiliations

    • GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium
    • ,
  • J. Bogaerts

      Affiliations

    • European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Data Centre, Brussels, Belgium
    • ,
  • L.H. Schwartz

      Affiliations

    • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
    • ,
  • D. Sargent

      Affiliations

    • Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
    • ,
  • R. Ford

      Affiliations

    • RadPharm, Princeton, NJ, USA
    • ,
  • J. Dancey

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
    • ,
  • S. Arbuck

      Affiliations

    • Schering-Plough, Kenilworth, NJ, USA
    • ,
  • S. Gwyther

      Affiliations

    • East Surrey Hospital, Redhill, Surrey, UK
    • ,
  • M. Mooney

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
    • ,
  • L. Rubinstein

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
    • ,
  • L. Shankar

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
    • ,
  • L. Dodd

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
    • ,
  • R. Kaplan

      Affiliations

    • National Cancer Research Network, Leeds, UK
    • ,
  • D. Lacombe

      Affiliations

    • European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Data Centre, Brussels, Belgium
    • ,
  • J. Verweij

      Affiliations

    • Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Received 17 October 2008 ,Accepted 29 October 2008.

References 

  1. Paesmans M, Sculier JP, Libert P, et al. Response to chemotherapy has predictive value for further survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: 10 years experience of the European Lung Cancer Working Party. Eur J Cancer. 1997;33:2326–2332
  2. Buyse M, Thirion P, Carlson RW, et al. Relation between tumor response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis group in Cancer. Lancet. 2000;356:373–378
  3. Goffin J, Baral S, Tu D, et al. Objective responses in patients with malignant melanoma or renal cell cancer in early clinical studies do not predict regulatory approval. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;15:5928–5934
  4. El-Maraghi RH, Eisenhauer EA. Review of phase II trial designs used in studies of molecular targeted agents: outcomes and predictors of success in phase III. J Clin Oncol. 2008;10:1346–1354
  5. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47:207–214
  6. Tonkin K, Tritchler D, Tannock I. Criteria of tumor response used in clinical trials of chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1985;3:870–875
  7. Baar J, Tannock I. Analyzing the same data in two ways: a demonstration model to illustrate the reporting and misreporting of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7:969–978
  8. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors (RECIST Guidelines). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–216
  9. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J. RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:1031–1039
  10. Bogaerts J, Ford R, Sargent D, et al. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:248–260
  11. Moskowitz CS, Jia X, Schwartz LH, Gönen M. A simulation study to evaluate the impact of the number of lesions measured on response assessment. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:300–310
  12. Sargent D, Rubinstein L, Schwartz L, et al. Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trials end-points. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:290–299
  13. Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold SC, Cairncross JG. Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:1277–1280
  14. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;10:579–586
  15. Schwartz LH, Bogaerts J, Ford R, et al. Evaluation of lymph nodes with RECIST 1.1. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:261–267
  16. Rustin GJ, Quinn M, Thigpen T, et al. Re: New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors (ovarian cancer). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:487–488
  17. Bubley GJ, Carducci M, Dahut W, et al. Eligibility and response guidelines for phase II clinical trials in androgen-independent prostate cancer: recommendations from the Prostate-Specific Antigen Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:3461–3467
  18. Scher H, Halabi S, Tannock I, et al. Design and end points of clinical trials for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone: recommendations of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1148–1159
  19. Vergote I, Rustin GJ, Eisenhauer EA, et al. Re: new guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors [ovarian cancer]. Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1534–1535
  20. Van Glabbeke M, Verweij J, Judson I, Nielsen OS. EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group: Progression-free rate as the principal end-point for phase II trials in soft-tissue sarcomas. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:543–549
  21. Dancey JE, Dodd LE, Ford R, et al. Recommendations for the assessment of progression in randomised cancer treatment trials. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:281–289
  22. Ford R, Schwartz L, Dancey J, et al. Lessons learned from independent central review. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:268–274
  23. Catalano C, Francone M, Ascarelli A, Mangia M, Iacucci I, Passariello R. Optimizing radiation dose and image quality. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(Suppl 6):F26–F32
  24. Low RN. Abdominal MRI advances in the detection of liver tumours and characterization. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(6):525–535
  25. Barrett T, Choyke PL, Kobayashi H. Imaging of the lymphatic system: new horizons. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2006;1(6):230–245
  26. Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, et al. National Cancer Institute. Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(6):1059–1066

PII: S0959-8049(08)00873-3

doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026

European Journal of Cancer
Volume 45, Issue 2 , Pages 228-247 , January 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution