Advertisement

The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)

  • Kate Lathrop
  • Virginia Kaklamani
Chapter

Abstract

Cancer is one of the most dominant global health concerns, and the field of cancer therapeutics is in an era of rapid expansion. It is thus critical that the system for evaluating the effectiveness of new cancer treatments be accurate, standardized, and applied to clinical research across healthcare systems.

RECIST is a set of published rules that define when cancer patients with solid tumors “respond,” “stabilize,” or “progress” during treatments. Below is a summary of the current guidelines for the assessment of tumor response to antineoplastic therapies including special considerations such as evaluation of immune therapies and malignancies involving the central nervous system. Also reviewed are different assessment techniques and the rationalization of standardization of assessment systems.

Keywords

Tumor assessment Tumor measurement RECIST iRECIST PERCIST RANO-BM 

References

  1. 1.
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors (RECIST guidelines). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eisenhauer E, Therasse P, Bogaerts l, et al. New responses evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guidelines (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwartz LH, Litiere S, de Vries E, et al. RECIST 1.1- update and clarification: from the RECIST committee. Eur J Cancer. 2016;62:132–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:711–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Topalian SL, Drake C, Pardoll D. Immune checkpoint blockade: a common denominator approach to cancer therapy. Cancer Cell. 2015;27:450–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pardoll D. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12:252–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seymour L, Bogaerts J, Perrone A, et al. iRecist: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:143–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wolchok JD, Hoos A, O’Day S, et al. Guideline for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-related response criteria. Cancer Therapy. 2009;15:7412–20.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:496–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ZinZani P, Tani M, Alinari S, et al. Early positron emission tomography (PET) restaging: a predictive final response in Hodgkin’s disease patients. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:1296–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wahl R, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, et al. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:122–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dehdashti F, Flanagan FL, Mortimer JE, Katzenellenbogen JA, Welch MJ, Siegel BA. Positron emission tomographic assessment of “metabolic flare” to predict response of metastatic breast cancer to antiestrogen therapy. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999;26:51–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bos R, van Der Hoeven JJ, van der WE, et al. Biologic correlates of (18)fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:379–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cerfolio R, Bryant A, Winokur T, et al. Repeat FDG-PET after neoadjuvant therapy is a predictor of pathologic response in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;78:1903–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1059–66.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    MacDonald DR, Cascino TL, Scold SC, et al. Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:1277–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wen P, Macdonald D, Reardon D, et al. Update response assessment criteria for hight-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(11):1963–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lin N, Aoyama H, Barani I, et al. Response assessment criteria for brain metastases: proposal from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:e270–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Oncology and HematologyUniversity of Texas Health Science Center San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  2. 2.Department of MedicineUniversity of Texas Health Science Center San AntonioSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations