Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pearls and pitfalls of response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) v1.1 non-target lesion assessment

  • Pictorial essay
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Oncologic imaging is an important facet of abdominal imaging that radiologists encounter nearly every day. Many oncology clinical trials utilize response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 which divides tumor sites into target and non-target lesions. Although RECIST v1.1 provides clear instructions regarding the use of imaging in clinical trials, errors in response assessment still occur using these criteria. This is especially true of response assessment with regards to non-target lesions which involve rules which are less well-defined and somewhat subjective. This pictorial essay will review RECIST v1.1 guidelines and common non-target lesion errors which can occur at baseline and follow-up response assessment.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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(3):205–216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Green S, Weiss GR (1992) Southwest Oncology Group standard response criteria, endpoint definitions and toxicity criteria. Investig New Drugs 10(4):239–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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(9):1040–1046. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1984.2.9.1040

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Padhani AR, Ollivier L (2001) The RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria: implications for diagnostic radiologists. Br J Radiol 74(887):983–986. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.74.887.740983

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J (2006) RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer 42(8):1031–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2006.01.026

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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(2):228–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Dr., Tampa, FL, 33612, USA

    Brian Morse & Daniel Jeong

  2. Department of Radiology, University of South Florida, 2 Tampa General Circle, STC 7028, Tampa, FL, 33606, USA

    Gary Ihnat

  3. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, 13400 E. Shea Blvd., Scottsdale, AZ, 85259, USA

    Alvin C. Silva

Authors
  1. Brian Morse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Jeong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gary Ihnat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alvin C. Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian Morse.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was utilized for this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morse, B., Jeong, D., Ihnat, G. et al. Pearls and pitfalls of response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) v1.1 non-target lesion assessment. Abdom Radiol 44, 766–774 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1752-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1752-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation