Advertisement

Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology

, Volume 80, Issue 4, pp 729–735 | Cite as

Comparison of the RECIST and EORTC PET criteria in the tumor response assessment: a pooled analysis and review

  • Jung Han Kim
  • Bum Jun Kim
  • Hyun Joo Jang
  • Hyeong Su Kim
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

RECIST EORTC criteria PET Tumor response 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This work had no specific funding.

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 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. 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. 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
  4. 4.
    Shankar LK, Van den Abbeele A, Yap J, Benjamin R, Scheutze S, Fitzgerald TJ (2009) Considerations for the use of imaging tools for phase II treatment trials in oncology. Clin Cancer Res 15(2):1891–1897. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2030 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Krystal GW, Alesi E, Tatum JL (2012) Early FDG/PET scanning as a harmacodynamic marker of anti-EGFR antibody activity in colorectal cancer. Mol Cancer Ther 11(7):1385–1388. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-12-0011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Skoura E, Datseris IE, Platis I, Oikonomopoulos G, Syrigos KN (2012) Role of positron emission tomography in the early prediction of response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 13(3):181–187. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2011.05.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 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
  10. 10.
    Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50:122S–150S. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.057307 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    Skougaard K, Nielsen D, Jensen BV, Hendel HW (2013) Comparison of EORTC criteria and PERCIST for PET/CT response evaluation of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan and cetuximab. J Nucl Med 54(7):1026–1031. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.112.111757 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 14.
    Thacker CA, Weiss GJ, Tibes R, Blaydorn L, Downhour M, White E, Baldwin J, Hoff DD, Korn RL (2012) 18-FDG PET/CT assessment of basal cell carcinoma with vismodegib. Cancer Med 1(2):230–236. doi: 10.1002/cam4.33 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Magnan H, Abramson SJ, Price AP, Grewal RK, Merchant MS, LaQuaglia MP, Meyers PA (2013) Positron emission tomography for response assessment in desmoplastic small round cell tumor. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 35(5):e190–e193. doi: 10.1097/MPH.0b013e3182707d4c CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. 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
  18. 18.
    Kim JH, Min SJ, Jang HJ, Cho JW, Kim SH, Kim HS (2015) Comparison of RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 in patients with metastatic cancer: a pooled analysis. J Cancer 6(4):387–393. doi: 10.7150/jca.11316 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim JH (2016) Comparison of the RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 in patients treated with targeted agents: a pooled analysis and review. Oncotarget 7(12):13680–13687. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.7322 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roberts C (2008) Modelling patterns of agreement for nominal scales. Stat Med 27(6):810–830CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Puranik AD, Purandare NC, Shah S, Agrawal A, Rangarajan V (2015) Role of FDG PET/CT in assessing response to targeted therapy in metastatic lung cancers: morphological versus metabolic criteria. Indian J Nucl Med 30(1):21–25. doi: 10.4103/0972-3919.147529 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aras M, Erdil TY, Dane F, Gungor S, Ones T, Dede F, Inanir S, Turoglu HT (2016) Comparison of WHO, RECIST 1.1, EORTC, and PERCIST criteria in the evaluation of treatment response in malignant solid tumors. Nucl Med Commun 37(1):9–15. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000401 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Öztürk H (2016) Comparing RECIST with EORTC criteria in metastatic bladder cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 142(1):187–194. doi: 10.1007/s00432-015-2022-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 25.
    Veit-Haibach P, Schaefer NG, Steinert HC, Soyka JD, Seifert B, Stahel RA (2010) Combined FDG-PET/CT in response evaluation of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 67(3):311–317. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2009.04.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schaefer NG, Veit-Haibach P, Soyka JD, Steinert HC, Stahel RA (2012) Continued pemetrexed and platin-based chemotherapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM): value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Eur J Radiol 81(1):e19–e25. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 28.
    Suzuki C, Jacobsson H, Hatschek T, Torkzad MR, Bodén K, Eriksson-Alm Y, Berg E, Fujii H, Kubo A, Blomqvist L (2008) Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: practical approaches and limitations. Radiographics 28(2):329–344. doi: 10.1148/rg.282075068 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 30.
    Van den Abbeele AD (2008) The lessons of GIST–PET and PET/CT: a new paradigm for imaging. Oncologist 13:8–13. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.13-S2-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 32.
    Cachin F, Kelly A, Maublant J (2006) Evaluation of the therapeutic response: role of isotopic imaging. Bull Cancer 93(12):1191–1199PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Hemato-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangnam Sacred-Heart HospitalHallym University Medical Center, Hallym University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Internal MedicineKoran Armed Forces Capital Hospital, The Armed Forces Medical CommandSungnamRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal MedicineDongtan Sacred-Heart Hospital, Hallym University Medical Center, Hallym University College of MedicineHwasungRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations