Comparison of the RECIST and EORTC PET criteria in the tumor response assessment: a pooled analysis and review
- 270 Downloads
The EORTC PET criteria (EORTC criteria) are used to assess metabolic tumor response in patients with solid tumors. We conducted this pooled study to compare tumor responses according to the RECIST and EORTC criteria.
Electronic databases were searched for eligible articles with the terms of “RECIST” or “EORTC criteria”. We found seven articles with the data on the comparison of tumor responses by the RECIST and EORTC criteria.
A total of 181 patients were recruited from the seven studies. Ninety-two patients (50.8%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy and 89 were treated with targeted agents. The agreement of tumor responses between the RECIST and EORTC criteria was moderate (k = 0.493). Of 181 patients, 66 (36.5%) showed disagreement in the tumor responses: tumor response was upgraded in 54 patients and downgraded in 12 when adopting the EORTC criteria. The estimated overall response rates were significantly different between the two criteria (52.5% by the EORTC vs. 29.8% by the RECIST, P < 0.0001). When comparing the two criteria according to the anti-cancer treatments (chemotherapy or targeted therapy), the levels of agreement in tumor responses were not excellent (k = 0.461 for chemotherapy and k = 0.524 for targeted therapy, respectively) regardless of therapeutic types.
This pooled study indicates that the concordance of tumor responses between the RECIST and EORTC criteria is not excellent. When adopting the EORTC criteria instead of the RECIST, the overall response rate was significantly increased.
KeywordsRECIST EORTC criteria PET Tumor response
Compliance with ethical standards
This work had no specific funding.
Conflict of interest
Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 1.Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, Verweij J, Van Glabbeke M, van Oosterom AT, Christian MC, Gwyther SG (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(3):205–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, Mooney M, Rubinstein L, Shankar L, Dodd L, Kaplan R, Lacombe D, Verweij J (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45(2):228–247. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Liu Y, Litière S, de Vries EG, Sargent D, Shankar L, Bogaerts J, Seymour L (2014) The role of response evaluation criteria in solid tumour in anticancer treatment evaluation: results of a survey in the oncology community. Eur J Cancer 50(2):260–266. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.10.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Kim HY, Kim JS, Choi DR, Kim HS, Kwon JH, Jang GD, Kim JH, Jung JY, Song HH, Lee YK, Min SK, Hwang HS, Kim HJ, Zang DY, Kim HJ (2015) The clinical utility of FDG PET-CT in evaluation of bone marrow involvement by lymphoma. Cancer Res Treat 47(3):458–464. doi: 10.4143/crt.2014.091 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Lee DH, Kim SK, Lee HY, Lee SY, Park SH, Kim HY, Kang KW, Han JY, Kim HT, Lee JS (2009) Early prediction of response to first-line therapy using integrated 18F-FDG PET/CT for patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 4(7):816–821. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181a99fde CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, Pruim J, Price P (1999) Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer 35(13):1773–1782CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Ziai D, Wagner T, El Badaoui A, Hitzel A, Woillard JB, Melloni B, Monteil J (2013) Therapy response evaluation with FDG-PET/CT in small cell lung cancer: a prognostic and comparison study of the PERCIST and EORTC criteria. Cancer Imaging 13:73–80. doi: 10.1102/1470-7330.2013.0008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 13.Monteil J, Mahmoudi N, Leobon S, Roudaut PY, El Badaoui A, Verbeke S, Venat-Bouvet L, Martin J, Le Brun-Ly V, Lavau-Denes S, Maubon A, Bouillet P, Pouquet M, Vandroux JC, Tubiana-Mathieu N (2009) Chemotherapy response evaluation in metastatic colorectal cancer with FDG PET/CT and CT scans. Anticancer Res 29(7):2563–2568PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Adkins D, Ley J, Dehdashti F, Siegel MJ, Wildes TM, Michel L, Trinkaus K, Siegel BA (2014) A prospective trial comparing FDG-PET/CT and CT to assess tumor response to cetuximab in patients with incurable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Med 3(6):1493–1501. doi: 10.1002/cam4.294 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 17.Zukotynski K, Yap JT, Giobbie-Hurder A, Weber J, Gonzalez R, Gajewski TF, O’Day S, Kim K, Hodi FS, Van den Abbeele AD (2014) Metabolic response by FDG-PET to imatinib correlates with exon 11 KIT mutation and predicts outcome in patients with mucosal melanoma. Cancer Imaging 14:30. doi: 10.1186/s40644-014-0030-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 24.Mertens LS, Fioole-Bruining A, van Rhijn BW, Kerst JM, Bergman AM, Vogel WV, Vegt E, Horenblas S (2013) FDG-positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for monitoring the response of pelvic lymph node metastasis to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for bladder cancer. J Urol 189(5):1687–1691. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.11.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Genestreti G, Moretti A, Piciucchi S, Giovannini N, Galassi R, Scarpi E, Burgio MA, Amadori D, Sanna S, Poletti V, Matteucci F, Gavelli G (2012) FDG PET/CT response evaluation in malignant pleural mesothelioma patients treated with talc pleurodesis and chemotherapy. J Cancer 3:241–245. doi: 10.7150/jca.2586 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 29.Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel BA, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, Coleman RE, Wahl R, Paschold JC, Avril N, Einhorn LH, Suh WW, Samson D, Delbeke D, Gorman M, Shields AF (2008) Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 49(3):480–508. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.107.047787 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Mac Manus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, McKenzie A, Rischin D, Salminen EK, Ball DL (2003) Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography scanning for response-assessment after radical radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 21(7):1285–1292. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.07.054 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar