Abstract
Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) remain an integral part of the assessment of tumour burden in many clinical trials in oncology; these criteria are used to evaluate the activity and efficacy of new cancer therapeutics in solid tumours. We aim to define the purpose of RECIST, and reflect on the level of documentation needed to enable changes for these criteria to develop a new RECIST. Maintaining the applicability of RECIST as a standard evaluation approach is associated with many challenges, in particular with maintaining a balance between the specificity and generalizability, continued validation and innovation, and use of RECIST in early phase versus late-phase drug development, as well as its relevance in clinical trials versus clinical practice. Key questions relate to different modes of actions of new classes of treatments and new imaging modalities; thus, the RECIST Working Group remains committed to maintain RECIST as a standard for the oncology community.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
World Health Organization. WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment (World Health Organization, 1979).
Therasse, P. 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. 92, 205–216 (2000).
Eisenhauer, E. A. et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer 45, 228–247 (2009).
Cheson, B. D. et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma — the Lugano Classification. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 3059–3068 (2014).
Lin, N. U. et al. Response assessment criteria for brain metastases: proposal from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 16, e270–e278 (2015).
Scher, H. I. et al. Trial design and objectives for castration-resistant prostate cancer: updated recommendations from the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 1402–1418 (2016).
US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. FDA http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugsGuidanceComplianceRegulatoyInformation/Guidance/UCM071590.pdf (2007).
O'Connor, J. P. B. et al. Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.162 (2016).
Bogaerts, J. et al. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 248–260 (2009).
Mandrekar, S. et al. Evaluation of alternate categorical tumor metrics and cut points for response categorization using the RECIST 1.1 data warehouse. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 841–852 (2014).
Sargent, D. J. et al. Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial endpoints. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 290–299 (2009).
RECIST Working Group. RECIST for targeted agents? EORTC http://www.eortc.org/recist/work-in-progress/recist-for-targeted-agents/ (2016).
Verweij, J., Therasse, P., Eisenhauer, E. & RECIST Working Group. Cancer clinical trial outcomes: any progress in tumour-size assessment? Eur. J. Cancer 45, 225–227 (2009).
Schwartz, L. H. et al. Standardisation and disease specific adaptations: perspectives from the RECIST Working Group. Eur. J. Cancer 62, 138–145 (2016).
Ferté, C. et al. Tumor growth rate is an early indicator of antitumor drug activity in phase I clinical trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 20, 246–252 (2014).
Mick, R., Crowley, J. J. & Carroll, R. J. Phase II clinical trial design for noncytotoxic anticancer agents for which time to disease progression is the primary endpoint. Control. Clin. Trials 21, 343–359 (2000).
Penel, N. et al. Growth modulation index as metric of clinical benefit assessment among advanced soft tissue sarcoma patients receiving trabectedin as a salvage therapy. Ann. Oncol. 24, 537–542 (2013).
Mehrara, E., Forssell-Aronsson, E., Ahlman, H. & Bernhardt, P. Specific growth rate versus doubling time for quantitative characterization of tumor growth rate. Cancer Res. 67, 3970–3975 (2007).
Schiavon, G. et al. The effect of baseline morphology and its change during treatment on the accuracy of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours in assessment of liver metastases. Eur. J. Cancer 50, 972–980 (2014).
Korn, R. L. & Crowley, J. J. Overview: progression-free survival as an endpoint in clinical trials with solid tumors. Clin. Cancer Res. 19, 2607–2612 (2013).
Wolchok, J. D. et al. Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-related response criteria. Clin. Cancer Res. 15, 7412–7420 (2009).
Chiou, V. L. & Burotto, M. Pseudoprogression and immune-related response in solid tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 3541–3543 (2015).
Ferté, C. et al. Dynamic quantitative imaging approaches to identify pseudoprogression (PSPD) in cancer patients treated by immune checkpoints blockers. AACR-NCI-EORTC International conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics 2015, Boston US. AACR http://www.aacr.org/Meetings/Shared%20Documents/Targets15_Program.pdf (2015).
Robinson, A. G., Booth, C. M. & Eisenhauer, E. A. Progression-free survival as an end-point in solid tumours — perspectives from clinical trials and clinical practice. Eur. J. Cancer 50, 2303–2308 (2014).
Booth, C. M. & Eisenhauer, E. A. Progression-free survival: meaningful or simply measurable? J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 1030–1033 (2012).
Fleming, T. R., Rothmann, M. D. & Lu, H. L. Issues in using progression-free survival when evaluating oncology products. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 2874–2880 (2009).
Sherrill, B., Kaye, J. A., Sandin, R., Cappelleri, J. C. & Chen, C. Review of meta-analyses evaluating surrogate endpoints for overall survival in oncology. Onco Targets Ther. 5, 287–296 (2012).
Kim, C. & Prasad, V. Cancer drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate end point and subsequent overall survival: an analysis of 5 years of US Food and Drug Administration approvals. JAMA Intern. Med. 19, 1–2 (2015).
Acknowledgements
This publication was supported by the EORTC Cancer Research Fund.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed substantially to all aspects of the preparation of the manuscript, including writing, editing, discussion of data for inclusion in the manuscript and revisions before publication.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
E.G.E.d.V. declares that her institute receives research grants from Amgen, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Pieris and Servier, that she is on the data monitoring committee for Biomarin, and serves on the Advisory Board for Merck and Synthon. The other authors declare no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Litière, S., Collette, S., de Vries, E. et al. RECIST — learning from the past to build the future. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14, 187–192 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.195
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.195
This article is cited by
-
A practical prognostic peripheral blood-based risk model for the evaluation of the likelihood of a response and survival of metastatic cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors
BMC Cancer (2023)
-
Pretreatment dual-energy CT for predicting early response to induction chemotherapy and survival in nasopharyngeal carcinoma
European Radiology (2023)
-
Comparison of response evaluation criteria in solid tumors and tumor regression grade in evaluating the effect of preoperative systemic therapy of gastric cancer
BMC Cancer (2022)
-
Role of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in the assessment of residual disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer
Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (2022)
-
Brachytherapy via a depot of biopolymer-bound 131I synergizes with nanoparticle paclitaxel in therapy-resistant pancreatic tumours
Nature Biomedical Engineering (2022)