Tuberc Respir Dis.  2017 Apr;80(2):136-142. 10.4046/trd.2017.80.2.136.

Response Evaluation of Chemotherapy for Lung Cancer

• Hwang KE
• Kim HR

• KMID: 2375982
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4046/trd.2017.80.2.136

Abstract

Assessing response to therapy allows for prospective end point evaluation in clinical trials and serves as a guide to clinicians for making decisions. Recent prospective and randomized trials suggest the development of imaging techniques and introduction of new anti-cancer drugs. However, the revision of methods, or proposal of new methods to evaluate chemotherapeutic response, is not enough. This paper discusses the characteristics of the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumor (RECIST) version 1.1 suggested in 2009 and used widely by experts. It also contains information about possible dilemmas arising from the application of response assessment by the latest version of the response evaluation method, or recently introduced chemotherapeutic agents. Further data reveals the problems and limitations caused by applying the existing RECIST criteria to anti-cancer immune therapy, and the application of a new technique, immune related response criteria, for the response assessment of immune therapy. Lastly, the paper includes a newly developing response evaluation method and suggests its developmental direction.

Keyword

Evaluation Studies as Topic; Drug Therapy; Lung Neoplasms

MeSH Terms

Drug Therapy*
Evaluation Studies as Topic
Lung Neoplasms*
Lung*
Methods
Prospective Studies
Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors

Reference

1. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981; 47:207–214.

2. Park JO, Lee SI, Song SY, Kim K, Kim WS, Jung CW, et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: comparison of RECIST and WHO response criteria. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2003; 33:533–537.

3. Therasse P. Measuring the clinical response: what does it mean? Eur J Cancer. 2002; 38:1817–1823.

4. James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M, Terenziani M, Vena D, Muldal A, et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999; 91:523–528.

5. Prasad SR, Saini S, Sumner JE, Hahn PF, Sahani D, Boland GW. Radiological measurement of breast cancer metastases to lung and liver: comparison between WHO (bidimensional) and RECIST (unidimensional) guidelines. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2003; 27:380–384.

6. Padhani AR, Husband JE. Commentary: are current tumour response criteria relevant for the 21st century? Br J Radiol. 2000; 73:1031–1033.

7. 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). Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45:228–247.

8. Nishino M, Jackman DM, Hatabu H, Yeap BY, Cioffredi LA, 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:W221–W228.

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. van Persijn van Meerten EL, Gelderblom H, Bloem JL. RECIST revised: implications for the radiologist. A review article on the modified RECIST guideline. Eur Radiol. 2010; 20:1456–1467.

11. Bogaerts J, Ford R, Sargent D, Schwartz LH, Rubinstein L, Lacombe D, et al. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45:248–260.

12. Trillet-Lenoir V, Freyer G, Kaemmerlen P, Fond A, Pellet O, Lombard-Bohas C, et al. Assessment of tumour response to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: accuracy of the RECIST criteria. Br J Radiol. 2002; 75:903–908.

13. Rasmussen F, Madsen HH. Imaging follow-up of RF ablation of lung tumours. Cancer Imaging. 2011; 11 Spec No A:S123–S128.

14. Lee HY, Lee KS, Ahn MJ, Hwang HS, Lee JW, Park K, et al. New CT response criteria in non-small cell lung cancer: proposal and application in EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. Lung Cancer. 2011; 73:63–69.

15. Hoos A, Eggermont AM, Janetzki S, Hodi FS, Ibrahim R, Anderson A, et al. Improved endpoints for cancer immunotherapy trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010; 102:1388–1397.

16. Benjamin RS, Choi H, Macapinlac HA, Burgess MA, Patel SR, Chen LL, et al. We should desist using RECIST, at least in GIST. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25:1760–1764.

17. Nishino M, Jagannathan JP, Krajewski KM, O'Regan K, Hatabu H, Shapiro G, et al. Personalized tumor response assessment in the era of molecular medicine: cancer-specific and therapy-specific response criteria to complement pitfalls of RECIST. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 198:737–745.

18. Hutson TE. Targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: clinical evidence. Oncologist. 2011; 16:Suppl 2. 14–22.

19. Yoshida S, Miyata Y, Ohtsu A, Boku N, Shirao K, Shimada Y. Significance of and problems in adopting Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor RECIST for assessing anticancer effects of advanced gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2000; 3:128–133.

20. Park JY, Jang SH. Epidemiology of lung cancer in Korea: recent trends. Tuberc Respir Dis (Seoul). 2016; 79:58–69.

21. Tuma RS. New response criteria proposed for immunotherapies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008; 100:1280–1281.

22. Desar IM, van Herpen CM, van Laarhoven HW, Barentsz JO, Oyen WJ, van der Graaf WT. Beyond RECIST: molecular and functional imaging techniques for evaluation of response to targeted therapy. Cancer Treat Rev. 2009; 35:309–321.

23. Fournier L, Ammari S, Thiam R, Cuenod CA. Imaging criteria for assessing tumour response: RECIST, mRECIST, Cheson. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2014; 95:689–703.

24. Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, Sabloff BS, Truong MT, Herbst RS, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21:2574–2582.

25. Kauczor HU, Zechmann C, Stieltjes B, Weber MA. Functional magnetic resonance imaging for defining the biological target volume. Cancer Imaging. 2006; 6:51–55.

26. McLarty K, Reilly RM. Molecular imaging as a tool for personalized and targeted anticancer therapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007; 81:420–424.

27. Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE. Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology. 2004; 231:305–332.

28. Glade Bender J, Cooney EM, Kandel JJ, Yamashiro DJ. Vascular remodeling and clinical resistance to antiangiogenic cancer therapy. Drug Resist Updat. 2004; 7:289–300.

29. Meijerink MR, van Cruijsen H, Hoekman K, Kater M, van Schaik C, van Waesberghe JH, et al. The use of perfusion CT for the evaluation of therapy combining AZD2171 with gefitinib in cancer patients. Eur Radiol. 2007; 17:1700–1713.

30. Kawada K, Murakami K, Sato T, Kojima Y, Ebi H, Mukai H, et al. Prospective study of positron emission tomography for evaluation of the activity of lapatinib, a dual inhibitor of the ErbB1 and ErbB2 tyrosine kinases, in patients with advanced tumors. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007; 37:44–48.

31. Ades F, Yamaguchi N. WHO, RECIST, and immune-related response criteria: is it time to revisit pembrolizumab results? Ecancermedicalscience. 2015; 9:604.

32. Wolchok JD, Hoos A, O'Day S, Weber JS, Hamid O, Lebbe C, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-related response criteria. Clin Cancer Res. 2009; 15:7412–7420.

33. Wolchok JD, Neyns B, Linette G, Negrier S, Lutzky J, Thomas L, et al. Ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2, dose-ranging study. Lancet Oncol. 2010; 11:155–164.

34. 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:Suppl 1. 122S–150S.

35. Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2010; 30:52–60.

36. Smith AD, Shah SN, Rini BI, Lieber ML, Remer EM. Morphology, Attenuation, Size, and Structure (MASS) criteria: assessing response and predicting clinical outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma on antiangiogenic targeted therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194:1470–1478.

37. Chung WS, Park MS, Shin SJ, Baek SE, Kim YE, Choi JY, et al. Response evaluation in patients with colorectal liver metastases: RECIST version 1.1 versus modified CT criteria. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 199:809–815.

38. Nanni C, Zamagni E, Versari A, Chauvie S, Bianchi A, Rensi M, et al. Image interpretation criteria for FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma: a new proposal from an Italian expert panel. IMPeTUs (Italian Myeloma criteria for PET USe). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016; 43:414–421.