Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 11/2016

28.05.2016 | Original Article

Comparison of RECIST, EORTC criteria and PERCIST for evaluation of early response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer

verfasst von: Jingjie Shang, Xueying Ling, Linyue Zhang, Yongjin Tang, Zeyu Xiao, Yong Cheng, Bin Guo, Jian Gong, Li Huang, Hao Xu

Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Ausgabe 11/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

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.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Moertel CG, Hanley JA. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer. 1976;38:388–94.CrossRefPubMed Moertel CG, Hanley JA. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer. 1976;38:388–94.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47:207–14.CrossRefPubMed Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47:207–14.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.CrossRefPubMed Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat 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. 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.
7.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:496–507.CrossRefPubMed Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:496–507.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat 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. 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.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:310–20.CrossRefPubMed Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:310–20.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:11S–20.CrossRefPubMed Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:11S–20.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Boellaard R. Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med. 2011;52 Suppl 2:93S–100. Boellaard R. Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med. 2011;52 Suppl 2:93S–100.
13.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology. 1993;189:847–50.CrossRefPubMed Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology. 1993;189:847–50.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Neuhoff AW, Wahl RL. Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction. Radiology. 1999;213:521–5.CrossRefPubMed Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Neuhoff AW, Wahl RL. Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction. Radiology. 1999;213:521–5.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Fox JJ, Autran-Blanc E, Morris MJ, Gavane S, Nehmeh S, Van Nuffel A, et al. Practical approach for comparative analysis of multilesion molecular imaging using a semiautomated program for PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1727–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Fox JJ, Autran-Blanc E, Morris MJ, Gavane S, Nehmeh S, Van Nuffel A, et al. Practical approach for comparative analysis of multilesion molecular imaging using a semiautomated program for PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1727–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Ordu C, Selcuk NA, Akosman C, Eren OO, Altunok EC, Toklu T, et al. Comparison of metabolic and anatomic response to chemotherapy based on PERCIST and RECIST in patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16:321–6.CrossRefPubMed Ordu C, Selcuk NA, Akosman C, Eren OO, Altunok EC, Toklu T, et al. Comparison of metabolic and anatomic response to chemotherapy based on PERCIST and RECIST in patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16:321–6.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.PubMedPubMedCentral 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.PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, Graham MM, Karp J, Lammertsma AA, 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.PubMed Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, Graham MM, Karp J, Lammertsma AA, 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.PubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Sebastian TB, Manjeshwar RM, Akhurst TJ, Miller JV. Objective PET lesion segmentation using a spherical mean shift algorithm. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2006;9:782–9.PubMed Sebastian TB, Manjeshwar RM, Akhurst TJ, Miller JV. Objective PET lesion segmentation using a spherical mean shift algorithm. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2006;9:782–9.PubMed
21.
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Monteil J, Mahmoudi N, Leobon S, Roudaut PY, El Badaoui A, Verbeke S, et al. Chemotherapy response evaluation in metastatic colorectal cancer with FDG PET/CT and CT scans. Anticancer Res. 2009;29:2563–8.PubMed Monteil J, Mahmoudi N, Leobon S, Roudaut PY, El Badaoui A, Verbeke S, et al. Chemotherapy response evaluation in metastatic colorectal cancer with FDG PET/CT and CT scans. Anticancer Res. 2009;29:2563–8.PubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee DH, Kim SK, Lee HY, Lee SY, Park SH, Kim HY, et al. Early prediction of response to first-line therapy using integrated 18F-FDG PET/CT for patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4:816–21.CrossRefPubMed Lee DH, Kim SK, Lee HY, Lee SY, Park SH, Kim HY, et al. Early prediction of response to first-line therapy using integrated 18F-FDG PET/CT for patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4:816–21.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Wahl RL, Zasadny K, Helvie M, Hutchins GD, Weber B, Cody R. Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:2101–11.PubMed Wahl RL, Zasadny K, Helvie M, Hutchins GD, Weber B, Cody R. Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:2101–11.PubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Novello S, Vavala T, Levra MG, Solitro F, Pelosi E, Veltri A, et al. Early response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer assessed by [18F]-fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Clin Lung Cancer. 2013;14:230–7.CrossRefPubMed Novello S, Vavala T, Levra MG, Solitro F, Pelosi E, Veltri A, et al. Early response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer assessed by [18F]-fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Clin Lung Cancer. 2013;14:230–7.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Ziai D, Wagner T, El Badaoui A, Hitzel A, Woillard JB, Melloni B, et al. Therapy response evaluation with FDG-PET/CT in small cell lung cancer: a prognostic and comparison study of the PERCIST and EORTC criteria. Cancer Imaging. 2013;13:73–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ziai D, Wagner T, El Badaoui A, Hitzel A, Woillard JB, Melloni B, et al. Therapy response evaluation with FDG-PET/CT in small cell lung cancer: a prognostic and comparison study of the PERCIST and EORTC criteria. Cancer Imaging. 2013;13:73–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Skougaard K, Nielsen D, Jensen BV, Hendel HW. Comparison of EORTC criteria and PERCIST for PET/CT response evaluation of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan and cetuximab. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1026–31.CrossRefPubMed Skougaard K, Nielsen D, Jensen BV, Hendel HW. Comparison of EORTC criteria and PERCIST for PET/CT response evaluation of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan and cetuximab. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1026–31.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Huang EH, Heidt DG, Li CW, Simeone DM. Cancer stem cells: a new paradigm for understanding tumor progression and therapeutic resistance. Surgery. 2007;141:415–9.CrossRefPubMed Huang EH, Heidt DG, Li CW, Simeone DM. Cancer stem cells: a new paradigm for understanding tumor progression and therapeutic resistance. Surgery. 2007;141:415–9.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Hajj M, Becker MW, Wicha M, Weissman I, Clarke MF. Therapeutic implications of cancer stem cells. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2004;14:43–7.CrossRefPubMed Al-Hajj M, Becker MW, Wicha M, Weissman I, Clarke MF. Therapeutic implications of cancer stem cells. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2004;14:43–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Comparison of RECIST, EORTC criteria and PERCIST for evaluation of early response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer
verfasst von
Jingjie Shang
Xueying Ling
Linyue Zhang
Yongjin Tang
Zeyu Xiao
Yong Cheng
Bin Guo
Jian Gong
Li Huang
Hao Xu
Publikationsdatum
28.05.2016
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Ausgabe 11/2016
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3420-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2016

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 11/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Society Communications

2016 Young Investigators Meeting