European Journal of Cancer
Volume 45, Issue 2 , Pages 248-260, January 2009

Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria

  • Jan Bogaerts

      Affiliations

    • European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Avenue Mounierlaan, 83/11, Brussel 1200 Bruxelles, Belgium
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Tel.: +32 2 774 10 63; fax: +32 2 771 38 10.
  • ,
  • Robert Ford

      Affiliations

    • RadPharm, Princeton, USA
  • ,
  • Dan Sargent

      Affiliations

    • Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
  • ,
  • Lawrence H. Schwartz

      Affiliations

    • MSKCC, New York, USA
  • ,
  • Larry Rubinstein

      Affiliations

    • National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA
  • ,
  • Denis Lacombe

      Affiliations

    • European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Avenue Mounierlaan, 83/11, Brussel 1200 Bruxelles, Belgium
  • ,
  • Elizabeth Eisenhauer

      Affiliations

    • National Cancer Institute of Canada – Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada
  • ,
  • Jaap Verweij

      Affiliations

    • Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Patrick Therasse

      Affiliations

    • GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium
  • ,
  • for the RECIST Working Party

Received 17 October 2008; accepted 29 October 2008. published online 17 December 2008.

Abstract 

Background

After the initial RECIST 1.0 were published in 2000, the criteria were widely implemented in the scientific oncology community. Since then, the RECIST working group has identified several issues to examine further. Two key issues that required careful, data-based assessment were the maximum number of lesions that should be assessed at each evaluation and the added value of requiring confirmation of response.

Methods

To address these questions, data were obtained from 16 clinical trials in metastatic cancer, with patients enrolled between 1993 and 2005. A total of 6512 patients were included in the primary analysis dataset, accounting for over 18,000 potential target lesions. Nine percent of the included patients (n=585) had six or more reported target lesions. The response and progression outcomes in the database were calculated using an adjusted RECIST methodology with a maximum of 5 (or 3) target lesions with/without confirmation and this was compared to the original RECIST version 1.0 which required up to 10 target lesions plus confirmation of response.

Results

Assessment of 5 lesions per patient led to a difference in best overall response assignment for an estimated 209 (3.2%) patients as compared to RECIST version 1.0. However, these changes did not affect the overall response rate. Progression-free survival was only minimally affected by measuring fewer lesions. In contrast, removing the requirement for response confirmation led to a significant increase in the numbers of patients classified as responders, resulting in a relative increase of approximately 19% in response rate. An algorithm using a maximum of three target lesions shows high concordance with the 10 lesions requirement in terms of response and TTP assignment. Concern that appropriate assessment of disease within an organ requires two lesions to be followed per organ suggests the approach of following two target lesions per organ, up to a maximum of five target lesions overall. Both strategies seem reasonable based on the data warehouse. The requirement of response confirmation in trials where this is a primary end-point is recommended to be maintained as its removal would substantially increase reported response rates.

Keywords: Tumour measurements, RECIST, Response, Progression

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0959-8049(08)00874-5

doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.027

European Journal of Cancer
Volume 45, Issue 2 , Pages 248-260, January 2009