Tumor Response Assessment: RECIST and Beyond
The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidance was introduced in 2000 and revised as RECIST 1.1 in 2009. RECIST was put together with the goal of standardising and simplifying tumor response criteria. The important role of imaging in response assessment was recognised, and specific imaging guidelines were included. The significant imaging-related changes in RECIST 1.1 in comparison to RECIST 1.0 included a reduction in the number of lesions to be addressed, from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of 5 and from 5 to 2 lesions per organ; assessment of lymph node size; and clarification of what constituted disease progression. The definitions of response within the RECIST guidance are addressed within this chapter in addition to the limitations of using tumor size alone as a biomarker for tumor response. Other methods of assessing tumor response such as response to immunotherapy (iRECIST) and response on PET-CT (PERCIST) are also included.
KeywordsCT MRI RECIST PET Tumor response
- 3.Nishino M, Jackman DM, Hatabu H, Yeah BY, Cioffredi L-A, Yap JT, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) guidelines for advanced non–small cell lung cancer: comparison with original RECIST and impact on assessment of tumor response to targeted therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(3):W221–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.WHO. Handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment, No. 48. Geneva: World Health Offset Organization; 1979.Google Scholar
- 14.Carceller F, Bautista FJ, Fowkes LA, Marshall LV, Sirvent SI, Chisholm JC, et al. Response assessment in pediatric phase I trials according to RECIST guidelines: survival outcomes, patterns of progression and relevance of changes in tumor measurements. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016;63:1400–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Warren KE, Poussaint TY, Vezina G, Hargrave D, Packer RJ, Goldman S, et al. Challenges with defining response to antitumor agents in pediatric neuro-oncology: a report from the response assessment in pediatric neuro-oncology (RAPNO) working group. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013;60:1397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(S1):1225–50.Google Scholar
- 24.Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, Macapinlac HA, Burgess MA, Patel SR, et al. Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastastic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1753–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Malempati S, Weigel B, Ingle AM, Ahern CH, Carroll JM, Roberts CT, Reid JM, Schmechel S, Voss SD, Cho SY, Chen HX, Krailo MD, Adamson PC, Blaney SM. Phase I/II trial and pharmacokinetic study of cixutumumab in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors and Ewing sarcoma: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(3):256–62. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.37.4355.
- 40.Mullen EA, Chi YY, Hibbitts E, Anderson JR, Steacy KJ, Geller JI, Green DM, Khanna G, Malogolowkin MH, Grundy PE, Fernandez CV, Dome JS. Impact of surveillance imaging modality on survival after recurrence in patients with favorable-histology Wilms Tumor: a report from the children’s oncology group. J Clin Oncol. 2018:JCO1800076. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.00076. [Epub ahead of print].