ABSTRACT
UNLABELLED: Background : The impact of the RECIST 1.1 on the selection of target lesions and assessment of tumor response was not evaluated in patients with advanced NSCLC who received cytotoxic chemotherapy. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of patients with advanced NSCLC who received first-line chemotherapy between January 2004 and December 2013 and compared the selection of target lesions and tumor responses using the two RECIST versions. RESULTS: A total of 88 patients who had at least one target lesion according to the RECIST 1.0 were included in the study. The number of target lesions by the RECIST 1.1 was significantly lower than that by the RECIST 1.0. When adopting the RECIST 1.1 instead of the RECIST 1.0, 40 patients (45.4%) showed a decrease in the number of target lesions. Three patients no longer had target lesion because of the new lymph node (LN) criteria of the RECIST 1.1. Tumor responses showed a high level of concordance between the RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1, with a kappa value of 0.912. Four patients (4.5%) showed disagreement of tumor responses between the two criteria, which were all due to the change of the LN criteria. CONCLUSION: The RECIST 1.1 showed a high level of concordance with the RECIST 1.0 in the assessment of tumor response in advanced NSCLC patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy. The new LN criteria were the major cause of the reduction of target lesions and reclassification of the tumor response.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guideline version 1.0 (RECIST 1.0) was proposed as a new guideline for evaluating tumor response and has been widely accepted as a standardized measure. With a number of issues being raised on RECIST 1.0, however, a revised RECIST guideline version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) was proposed by the RECIST Working Group in 2009. This study was conducted to compare CT tumor response based on RECIST 1.1 vs. RECIST 1.0 in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS: We reviewed 61 AGC patients with measurable diseases by RECIST 1.0 who were enrolled in other clinical trials between 2008 and 2010. These patients were retrospectively re-analyzed to determine the concordance between the two response criteria using the κ statistic. RESULTS: The number and sum of tumor diameters of the target lesions by RECIST 1.1 were significantly lower than those by RECIST 1.0 (P<0.0001). However, there was excellent agreement in tumor response between RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 (κ=0.844). The overall response rates (ORRs) according to RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 were 32.7% (20/61) and 34.5% (20/58), respectively. One patient with partial response (PR) based on RECIST 1.0 was reclassified as stable disease (SD) by RECIST 1.1. Of two patients with SD by RECIST 1.0, one was downgraded to progressive disease and the other was upgraded to PR by RECIST 1.1. CONCLUSIONS: RECIST 1.1 provided almost perfect agreement with RECIST 1.0 in the CT assessment of tumor response of AGC.
