Comparison of RECIST, EORTC criteria and PERCIST for evaluation of early response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer
- 1.4k Downloads
To compare the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria and the Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) 1.0 using PET volume computer-assisted reading (PET VCAR) for response evaluation in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with chemotherapy.
A total of 35 patients with NSCLC were included in this prospective study. All patients received standard chemotherapy and underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT scans before and after treatment. With the assistance of PET VCAR, the chemotherapeutic responses were evaluated according to the RECIST 1.1, EORTC criteria and PERCIST 1.0. Concordance among these protocols was assessed using Cohen’s κ coefficient and Wilcoxon’s signed-ranks test. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier test.
RECIST 1.1 and EORTC response classifications were discordant in 20 patients (57.1 %; κ = 0.194, P < 0.05), and RECIST 1.1 and PERCIST 1.0 classifications were discordant in 22 patients (62.9 %; κ = 0.139, P < 0.05). EORTC and PERCIST 1.0 classifications were discordant in only 4 patients (11.4 %), resulting in better concordance (κ = 0.804, P > 0.05). Patients with a partial remission according to RECIST 1.1 had significantly longer PFS (P < 0.001) than patients with progressive disease, but not significantly longer than patients with stable disease (P = 0.855). According to both the EORTC criteria and PERCIST 1.0, patients with a partial metabolic response had a significantly longer PFS than those with stable metabolic disease and those with progressive metabolic disease (P = 0.020 and P < 0.001, respectively, for EORTC; both P < 0.001 for PERCIST 1.0).
EORTC criteria and PERCIST 1.0 are more sensitive and accurate than RECIST 1.1 for the detection of an early therapeutic response to chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC. Although EORTC criteria and PERCIST 1.0 showed similar results, PERCIST 1.0 is preferred because detailed and unambiguous definitions are given. We also found that response evaluations with PERCIST 1.0 using a single lesion and multiple lesions gave similar response classifications.
KeywordsRECIST EORTC PERCIST Non-small cell lung cancer Response evaluation
We would like to thank the staff members of the Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET/CT-MR Centre, First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, for their excellent technical support.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the principles of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not describe any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 4.Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. 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. 2000;92:205–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Hicks RJ. Role of 18F-FDG PET in assessment of response in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:31S–42.Google Scholar
- 9.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–50.Google Scholar
- 12.Boellaard R. Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med. 2011;52 Suppl 2:93S–100.Google Scholar
- 13.Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, et al. 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. 1999;35:1773–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Ding Q, Cheng X, Yang L, Zhang Q, Chen J, Li T, et al. PET/CT evaluation of response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: PET response criteria in solid tumors (PERCIST) versus response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST). J Thorac Dis. 2014;6:677–83.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.Mac MMP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, McKenzie A, Rischin D, Salminen EK, et al. 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. 2003;21:1285–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar