Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Opinion
  • Published:

RECIST — learning from the past to build the future

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

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

Figure 1: Modifying RECIST.
Figure 2: A more-holistic approach to data collection.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization. WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment (World Health Organization, 1979).

  2. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lin, N. U. et al. Response assessment criteria for brain metastases: proposal from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 16, e270–e278 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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).

  8. 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).

  9. Bogaerts, J. et al. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 248–260 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sargent, D. J. et al. Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial endpoints. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 290–299 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. RECIST Working Group. RECIST for targeted agents? EORTC http://www.eortc.org/recist/work-in-progress/recist-for-targeted-agents/ (2016).

  13. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schwartz, L. H. et al. Standardisation and disease specific adaptations: perspectives from the RECIST Working Group. Eur. J. Cancer 62, 138–145 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Chiou, V. L. & Burotto, M. Pseudoprogression and immune-related response in solid tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 3541–3543 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 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).

  24. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Booth, C. M. & Eisenhauer, E. A. Progression-free survival: meaningful or simply measurable? J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 1030–1033 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This publication was supported by the EORTC Cancer Research Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

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

Correspondence to Jan Bogaerts.

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.

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.195

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research