Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Kriterien für die radiologische Beurteilung des Therapieansprechens

Kriterienbasierte Befundung

Criteria for radiological assessment of therapy response

Criteria-based appraisal

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Radiologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Ein sinnvoller Einsatz der onkologischen Bildgebung und Befundung in klinischen Studien ist nur anhand standardisierter Kriterien möglich, welche dafür ins Leben gerufen wurden, um klare Definitionen für die Beurteilung des Ansprechens auf systemische Tumortherapien zu schaffen. Neben ihrem Einsatz in klinischen Studien ist eine Kenntnis dieser Kriterien auch in der klinischen Routine von Vorteil, da sie als Leitfaden dafür dienen können, ein Therapieansprechen mit signifikanter Größenreduktion der Tumormanifestationen („partial response“) klar von einer stabilen Erkrankung („stable disease“) oder einem Progress („progressive disease“) zu unterscheiden.

Die hier vorliegende Arbeit bietet eine Zusammenfassung der RECIST-Kriterien („response evaluation criteria in solid tumors“), welche für die Beurteilung solider Tumoren verwendet werden, sowie Betrachtungen zu den Choi- und Cheson-Kriterien, welche bei gastrointestinalen Stromatumoren (GIST) und malignen Lymphomen anzuwenden sind. Diese Arbeit soll dabei sowohl eine Wiederholung der Kriterien für Experten bieten als auch einen Leitfaden für jüngere Kollegen darstellen, die in die Beurteilung von Verläufen bei Tumorpatienten in klinischen Studien einsteigen möchten.

Abstract

Oncologic imaging and reporting are an important part of clinical trials and have to be performed according to standardized criteria that clearly define how certain changes in the size and number of tumorous lesions have to be rated. Knowledge of these criteria is not only crucial when interpreting cases for a clinical trial but may also be used as guidelines for everyday clinical reporting as they aid decision making and can increase the validity of radiologic reporting.

This article summarizes the most important and frequently used criteria: the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) criteria which are only used in solid malignancies, the Choi criteria that have been designed for the assessment of gastrointestinal stroma tumors (GIST), and the Cheson criteria that are applied to malignant lymphomas. The compilation of these criteria is designed to be used as a repetitorium for experts and can also serve as training guidelines for junior radiologists who want to become involved in clinical trial reporting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. Boss A, Clasen S, Kuczyk M et al (2007) Image-guided radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Radiol 17:725–733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Buyse M, Thirion P, Carlson RW et al (2000) Relation between tumour response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer. Lancet 356:373–378

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Byrne MJ, Nowak AK (2004) Modified RECIST criteria for assessment of response in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Ann Oncol 15:257–260

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cademartiri F, Luccichenti G, Maffei E et al (2008) Imaging for oncologic staging and follow-up: review of current methods and novel approaches. Acta Biomed 79:85–91

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B et al (1999) Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. NCI Sponsored International Working Group. J Clin Oncol 17:1244

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME et al (2007) Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25:579–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, De Castro Faria S et al (2004) CT evaluation of the response of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after imatinib mesylate treatment: a quantitative analysis correlated with FDG PET findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1619–1628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC et al (2007) Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol 25:1753–1759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Durie BG, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS et al (2006) International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia 20:1467–1473

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. El-Maraghi RH, Eisenhauer EA (2008) Review of phase II trial designs used in studies of molecular targeted agents: outcomes and predictors of success in phase III. J Clin Oncol 26:1346–1354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Forner A, Ayuso C, Varela M et al (2009) Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: are response evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable? Cancer 115:616–623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Linton KM, Taylor MB, Radford JA (2006) Response evaluation in gastrointestinal stromal tumours treated with imatinib: misdiagnosis of disease progression on CT due to cystic change in liver metastases. Br J Radiol 79:e40–e44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold SC Jr et al (1990) Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 8:1277–1280

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M et al (1981) Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47:207–214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Nishino M, Jagannathan JP, Ramaiya NH et al (2010) Revised RECIST guideline version 1.1: what oncologists want to know and what radiologists need to know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:281–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Park MH, Rhim H, Kim YS et al (2008) Spectrum of CT findings after radiofrequency ablation of hepatic tumors. Radiographics 28:379–390 (discussion 390–372)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Prasad SR, Jhaveri KS, Saini S et al (2002) CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques initial observations. Radiology 225:416–419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Riaz A, Miller FH, Kulik LM et al (2010) Imaging response in the primary index lesion and clinical outcomes following transarterial locoregional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. JAMA 303:1062–1069

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Saini S (2001) Radiologic measurement of tumor size in clinical trials: past, present, and future. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:333–334

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Shankar S, Vansonnenberg E, Desai J et al (2005) Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: new nodule-within-a-mass pattern of recurrence after partial response to imatinib mesylate. Radiology 235:892–898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Suzuki C, Jacobsson H, Hatschek T et al (2008) Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: practical approaches and limitations. Radiographics 28:329–344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tan DS, Thomas GV, Garrett MD et al (2009) Biomarker-driven early clinical trials in oncology: a paradigm shift in drug development. Cancer J 15:406–420

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al (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 92:205–216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J (2006) RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer 42:1031–1039

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y et al (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):122S–150S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Warr D, Mckinney S, Tannock I (1984) Influence of measurement error on assessment of response to anticancer chemotherapy: proposal for new criteria of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2:1040–1046

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. World Health Organization (1979) WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. World Health Organization; sold by WHO Publications Centre USA, Geneva

  30. Yaghmai V, Miller FH, Rezai P et al (2011) Response to treatment series: part 2, tumor response assessment – using new and conventional criteria. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:18–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Klinische Radiologie, Klinikum der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Campus Grosshadern, Marchionistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland

    M. D’Anastasi, N.A. Schramm, M.F. Reiser & A. Graser

Authors
  1. M. D’Anastasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N.A. Schramm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M.F. Reiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Graser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. D’Anastasi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

D’Anastasi, M., Schramm, N., Reiser, M. et al. Kriterien für die radiologische Beurteilung des Therapieansprechens. Radiologe 53, 322–328 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-012-2435-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-012-2435-8

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation