Advertisement

Imaging Criteria for Tumor Treatment Response Evaluation

  • Arkadios Chr. Rousakis
  • John A. Andreou
Chapter

Abstract

The evaluation of the tumor response to therapy represents a significant and continuously expanding part of the radiological practice, especially in services with oncological departments. The modern imaging modalities are valuable tools for objective quantitative assessment of the result of new antineoplastic therapeutic schemes. The standardization of criteria provides common endpoints for clinical trials, permits comparisons between different studies, facilitates the formation of more effective therapies, and accelerates the procedure of approval of new drugs by the authorized organizations. The most widely used imaging criterion of a successful therapy is the shrinkage of the neoplastic lesions in a certain patient. It represents the typical endpoint in phase II trials, targeted to the preliminary evaluation of the effectiveness of new antineoplastic drugs in order to decide if these have to be further tested in wider clinical studies. Also, the objective criterion of “tumor shrinkage” and the duration of “progression free survival” (PFS) represent the commonest endpoints for phase III clinical trials, aiming to assess the benefit of applying one or more therapeutic schemes in specific patient populations.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization (1979) WHO Handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. WHO Publication No. 48. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors (RECIST Guidelines). J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA et al (2010) Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade glioma: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 28911:1963–1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME et al (2007) Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 10:579–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Persijn MEL, Gelberblom H (2010) RECIST revised: implications for the radiologist. A review article on the modified RECIST guideline. Eur Radiol 20(6):1456–1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nishino M, Jagganathan JP, Ramayia 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(2):281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chalian H, Tore HG, Horowitz JM et al (2011) Radiologic assessment of response to therapy: comparison of RECIST versions 1.1 and 1.0. Radiographics 31:2093–2105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mantatzis M, Kakolyris S, Amarantidis K et al (2009) Treatment response classification of liver metastatic disease evaluated on imaging: are RECIST unidimensional measurements accurate? Eur Radiol 19(7):1809–1816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nowak AK, Armato SG III, Ceresoli GL et al (2010) Imaging in pleural mesothelioma: a review of imaging research presented at the 9th international meeting of the International Mesothelioma Interest Group. Lung Cancer 70(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50:122S–150SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Desar IM, van Herpen CM, van Laarhoven HW et al (2009) Beyond RECIST: molecular and functional imaging techniques for evaluation of response to targeted therapies. Cancer Treat Rev 35(4):309–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RadiologyHygeia HospitalAtticaGreece
  2. 2.Imaging DepartmentHygeia and Mitera HospitalsAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations