Response evaluation in patients with colorectal liver metastases: RECIST version 1.1 versus modified CT criteria
Our retrospective study compared Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 with modified CT criteria to determine their respective utilities as a prognostic indicator. Using both sets of criteria, we compared treatment responses of patients with colorectal liver metastases tr...
Saved in:
Published in | American journal of roentgenology (1976) Vol. 199; no. 4; pp. 809 - 815 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
01.10.2012
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | Our retrospective study compared Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 with modified CT criteria to determine their respective utilities as a prognostic indicator. Using both sets of criteria, we compared treatment responses of patients with colorectal liver metastases treated with bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy with those of patients treated with chemotherapy alone.
Fifty-nine patients who received bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy (n=30, group 1) or chemotherapy alone (n=29, group 2) for the treatment of colorectal carcinoma underwent contrast-enhanced CT before treatment and 2 months after treatment. Two radiologists determined changes in tumor size and density between the pretreatment and 2-month follow-up CT images. RECIST 1.1 assesses responses on the basis of changes in tumor size, and the modified CT criteria assesses responses on the basis of changes in tumor density and size. Responses were correlated with time to tumor progression by log rank test.
According to RECIST 1.1, nine of 30 patients (30%) in group 1 and 12 of 29 patients (41%) in group 2 were good responders. According to the modified CT criteria, 23 of 30 patients in group 1 (77%) and 23 of 29 patients in group 2 (79%) were good responders. As assessed by the modified CT criteria, good responders in both groups had significantly longer time to tumor progression than poor responders (p<0.05). As assessed by RECIST 1.1, good responders in group 1 had significantly longer time to tumor progression than poor responders (p=0.0154), but there was no difference in group 2.
Evaluating treatment response with tumor size and density changes on CT was a better predictor of time to tumor progression than changes in tumor size alone in both groups. |
---|---|
AbstractList | OBJECTIVEOur retrospective study compared Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 with modified CT criteria to determine their respective utilities as a prognostic indicator. Using both sets of criteria, we compared treatment responses of patients with colorectal liver metastases treated with bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy with those of patients treated with chemotherapy alone.MATERIALS AND METHODSFifty-nine patients who received bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy (n=30, group 1) or chemotherapy alone (n=29, group 2) for the treatment of colorectal carcinoma underwent contrast-enhanced CT before treatment and 2 months after treatment. Two radiologists determined changes in tumor size and density between the pretreatment and 2-month follow-up CT images. RECIST 1.1 assesses responses on the basis of changes in tumor size, and the modified CT criteria assesses responses on the basis of changes in tumor density and size. Responses were correlated with time to tumor progression by log rank test.RESULTSAccording to RECIST 1.1, nine of 30 patients (30%) in group 1 and 12 of 29 patients (41%) in group 2 were good responders. According to the modified CT criteria, 23 of 30 patients in group 1 (77%) and 23 of 29 patients in group 2 (79%) were good responders. As assessed by the modified CT criteria, good responders in both groups had significantly longer time to tumor progression than poor responders (p<0.05). As assessed by RECIST 1.1, good responders in group 1 had significantly longer time to tumor progression than poor responders (p=0.0154), but there was no difference in group 2.CONCLUSIONEvaluating treatment response with tumor size and density changes on CT was a better predictor of time to tumor progression than changes in tumor size alone in both groups. Our retrospective study compared Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 with modified CT criteria to determine their respective utilities as a prognostic indicator. Using both sets of criteria, we compared treatment responses of patients with colorectal liver metastases treated with bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy with those of patients treated with chemotherapy alone. Fifty-nine patients who received bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy (n=30, group 1) or chemotherapy alone (n=29, group 2) for the treatment of colorectal carcinoma underwent contrast-enhanced CT before treatment and 2 months after treatment. Two radiologists determined changes in tumor size and density between the pretreatment and 2-month follow-up CT images. RECIST 1.1 assesses responses on the basis of changes in tumor size, and the modified CT criteria assesses responses on the basis of changes in tumor density and size. Responses were correlated with time to tumor progression by log rank test. According to RECIST 1.1, nine of 30 patients (30%) in group 1 and 12 of 29 patients (41%) in group 2 were good responders. According to the modified CT criteria, 23 of 30 patients in group 1 (77%) and 23 of 29 patients in group 2 (79%) were good responders. As assessed by the modified CT criteria, good responders in both groups had significantly longer time to tumor progression than poor responders (p<0.05). As assessed by RECIST 1.1, good responders in group 1 had significantly longer time to tumor progression than poor responders (p=0.0154), but there was no difference in group 2. Evaluating treatment response with tumor size and density changes on CT was a better predictor of time to tumor progression than changes in tumor size alone in both groups. |
Author | Park, Mi-Suk Choi, Jin Young Baek, Song-Ee Shin, Sang Joon Chung, Woo-Suk Kim, Myeong-Jin Kim, Yeo-Eun |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Woo-Suk surname: Chung fullname: Chung, Woo-Suk organization: Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Institute of Gastroenterology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seodaemun-ku, Shinchon-dong 134, Seoul 120-752, Republic of Korea – sequence: 2 givenname: Mi-Suk surname: Park fullname: Park, Mi-Suk – sequence: 3 givenname: Sang Joon surname: Shin fullname: Shin, Sang Joon – sequence: 4 givenname: Song-Ee surname: Baek fullname: Baek, Song-Ee – sequence: 5 givenname: Yeo-Eun surname: Kim fullname: Kim, Yeo-Eun – sequence: 6 givenname: Jin Young surname: Choi fullname: Choi, Jin Young – sequence: 7 givenname: Myeong-Jin surname: Kim fullname: Kim, Myeong-Jin |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22997372$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNo9kE1LxDAQhoMouq6evEuOgnTNJDFtvC2LnywI6wreSppOMdI2NWkV_71dV4WBeRmeeQ_PIdltfYuEnACbcQ7yYv6wmgHMUg1sh0zgUqpEgIRdMmFCQZIx8XJADmN8Y4ylmU73yQHnWqci5RPSrTB2vo1I8cPUg-mdb6lraTcmbPtIP13_Sq2vfUDbm5rW7gMDbbA3cRyMV3R1vbh_WtPxHDfPMIOfPETa-NJVDku6WFMbXI_BmSOyV5k64vHvnpLnm-v14i5ZPt7eL-bLxPJM9wmUJZcMueQVB1Gpy8JUyhpAlKIUleHWSlUoWchUKagyDYXQmBVoGVcglJiSs21vF_z7gLHPGxct1rVp0Q8xB6Y0Z4oJPaLnW9QGH2PAKu-Ca0z4GqF8ozgfFecA-UbxSJ_-Fg9Fg-U_--dUfANGyXkH |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1586_17474124_2015_1092873 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0182596 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_rx_2018_01_005 crossref_primary_10_22328_2079_5343_2018_9_3_75_84 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejrad_2018_07_027 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11547_019_01046_4 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jvir_2018_04_022 crossref_primary_10_1111_jgh_12847 crossref_primary_10_1148_rg_347130090 crossref_primary_10_18632_oncotarget_4747 crossref_primary_10_1684_bdc_2014_1987 crossref_primary_10_2217_fon_2017_0364 crossref_primary_10_25259_AJIR_12_2021 crossref_primary_10_1245_s10434_021_11101_y crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clcc_2016_04_009 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_suronc_2016_05_018 crossref_primary_10_2214_AJR_15_15202 crossref_primary_10_2217_fon_2017_0687 crossref_primary_10_25259_AJIR_29_2023 crossref_primary_10_1159_000506105 crossref_primary_10_5812_iranjradiol_110747 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_dld_2019_03_028 crossref_primary_10_1136_gutjnl_2017_315394 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bulcan_2019_08_013 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cytogfr_2019_10_002 crossref_primary_10_1002_jso_25920 crossref_primary_10_1002_jso_24678 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_hpb_2017_06_014 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejrad_2023_111203 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_critrevonc_2015_04_008 crossref_primary_10_4251_wjgo_v11_i4_295 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00261_015_0572_z crossref_primary_10_1016_j_amsu_2021_102793 crossref_primary_10_1148_radiol_2015142824 crossref_primary_10_1002_mp_13340 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jvir_2023_02_005 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0142876 crossref_primary_10_3748_wjg_v25_i35_5233 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13550_017_0302_3 crossref_primary_10_3390_jcm12206630 crossref_primary_10_1177_2050640615601603 crossref_primary_10_4251_wjgo_v9_i9_379 crossref_primary_10_1148_rg_336135511 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_acra_2016_02_007 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00261_015_0546_1 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_tranon_2014_02_009 crossref_primary_10_1148_radiol_13130776 crossref_primary_10_4046_trd_2017_80_2_136 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejso_2019_07_017 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00261_019_01911_w crossref_primary_10_1007_s11605_021_05164_1 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11888_016_0311_z crossref_primary_10_1007_s40259_018_0322_1 crossref_primary_10_1002_cncr_29534 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_hpb_2019_01_014 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00261_018_1682_1 crossref_primary_10_1136_gutjnl_2017_313786 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00270_019_02323_5 crossref_primary_10_1148_rg_352140119 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejrad_2018_02_031 crossref_primary_10_1245_s10434_022_11932_3 crossref_primary_10_3390_diagnostics14070772 |
Cites_doi | 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.8099 10.1038/nm0901-987 10.1002/cncr.23099 10.1186/1756-8722-3-11 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-0074 10.1245/s10434-010-0972-9 10.1148/radiol.2493080226 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 10.1093/jnci/92.3.205 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.3049 10.2214/AJR.07.2848 10.1093/annonc/mdl386 10.1055/s-0030-1247132 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.5299 10.2214/AJR.06.0280 10.1097/01.sla.0000145964.08365.01 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.7471 10.1007/s00330-009-1685-y 10.1001/jama.2009.1755 10.1148/radiol.2363041293 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM AAYXX CITATION 7X8 |
DOI | 10.2214/AJR.11.7910 |
DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed CrossRef MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) CrossRef MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Medicine |
EISSN | 1546-3141 |
EndPage | 815 |
ExternalDocumentID | 10_2214_AJR_11_7910 22997372 |
Genre | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Journal Article Comparative Study |
GroupedDBID | --- -DD .55 .GJ 1CY 1KJ 23M 2WC 34G 39C 3O- 53G 5GY 5RE AAEJM AAWTL ABOCM ACRZS ADBBV AENEX AFFNX AI. AJJEV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS BAWUL C1A CGR CS3 CUY CVF DIK E3Z EBS ECM EIF EJD F5P GX1 H13 J5H L7B LSO MJL NPM P2P SJN TR2 TRR TWZ UDS VH1 W2D W8F WH7 WOQ X7M YJK YQI YQJ ZGI ZVN ZXP AAYXX CITATION 7X8 |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c289t-1dd240e242f213f65baf6ca1ee43d3fa2cc46b64b47661f891b39e8bec0261363 |
ISSN | 0361-803X |
IngestDate | Fri Aug 16 02:09:51 EDT 2024 Fri Aug 23 02:46:37 EDT 2024 Sat Sep 28 08:03:41 EDT 2024 |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 4 |
Language | English |
LinkModel | OpenURL |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c289t-1dd240e242f213f65baf6ca1ee43d3fa2cc46b64b47661f891b39e8bec0261363 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
PMID | 22997372 |
PQID | 1069206039 |
PQPubID | 23479 |
PageCount | 7 |
ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_1069206039 crossref_primary_10_2214_AJR_11_7910 pubmed_primary_22997372 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2012-Oct 2012-10-00 20121001 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2012-10-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 10 year: 2012 text: 2012-Oct |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | United States |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
PublicationTitle | American journal of roentgenology (1976) |
PublicationTitleAlternate | AJR Am J Roentgenol |
PublicationYear | 2012 |
References | R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R20 R12 R11 R14 R13 R16 R15 R18 R17 R19 R1 |
References_xml | – ident: R5 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.8099 – ident: R19 doi: 10.1038/nm0901-987 – ident: R11 doi: 10.1002/cncr.23099 – ident: R12 doi: 10.1186/1756-8722-3-11 – ident: R20 doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-0074 – ident: R10 doi: 10.1245/s10434-010-0972-9 – ident: R15 doi: 10.1148/radiol.2493080226 – ident: R8 doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 – ident: R13 doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.3.205 – ident: R6 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.3049 – ident: R17 doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2848 – ident: R1 doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdl386 – ident: R18 doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1247132 – ident: R4 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.5299 – ident: R16 doi: 10.2214/AJR.06.0280 – ident: R2 doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000145964.08365.01 – ident: R3 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.7471 – ident: R9 doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1685-y – ident: R7 doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1755 – ident: R14 doi: 10.1148/radiol.2363041293 |
SSID | ssj0007897 |
Score | 2.386173 |
Snippet | Our retrospective study compared Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 with modified CT criteria to determine their respective... OBJECTIVEOur retrospective study compared Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 with modified CT criteria to determine their... |
SourceID | proquest crossref pubmed |
SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
StartPage | 809 |
SubjectTerms | Adult Aged Angiogenesis Inhibitors - therapeutic use Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized - therapeutic use Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols - therapeutic use Bevacizumab Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Colorectal Neoplasms - drug therapy Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology Contrast Media Humans Image Processing, Computer-Assisted Iohexol - analogs & derivatives Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Liver Neoplasms - secondary Male Middle Aged Multidetector Computed Tomography Prognosis |
Title | Response evaluation in patients with colorectal liver metastases: RECIST version 1.1 versus modified CT criteria |
URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22997372 https://search.proquest.com/docview/1069206039 |
Volume | 199 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1bb9MwFLbKkBAviDvlJiPtLUqpncSJeYOoY1TrQEsq-hbZibNVQsm0pjzs13McO5chkAYvUWSlrnTOl-NznO98RuhQgqO9gJWuJ2TowpsIrxQX1BWUKynyuYpa-eLVKTte-8tNsJlMrsfdJY2c5dd_7Cv5H6_CGPhVd8n-g2f7SWEA7sG_cAUPw_VWPj4zBFc10ux2Bq3UXccrh5Icwhr44ocmYehDowXkhDvLhlvEX5LU-Wn2zRwyI-39vj0kZ1vqDDVOHYgtjWUk97ls_7FnpD5xVcMfa93XVtlJi0BBIjLabYgvbHD5Xtdusu_bhL5ZyvZqOx5NLozCQSKqc2dZD4yBT0K1jyd1de4u1HjrgtCeBAcrjw23PoNVwEhf9fHYnJhkgeePoms05-OF2vSB_r4GUEp8rUWxPIPlYBZyy5q9obR9-jU7Wp-cZOlik95Bd2nIA00H_bwZ6EFhxEPTz6knfD-a7mYG85eypE1P0ofoga0r8EcDkkdooqrH6N7KMieeoMsOK3jACt5WuMMK1ljBA1ZwixU8YOUDNkjBFikYkIINUnCHFBynuEPKU7Q-WqTxsWtP23BzKLoblxQFZHcKUraSEq9kgRQlywVRyvcKrxQ0z30mmS_9EHK6MuJEelxFEAN0Ge8x7xk6qOpKvUA4KHIiiSgjWBxgypAXOjEvPSmUYAGJpuiws2B2aURVMihGtaEzMDRUpZk29BS966ybQdDTX7JEper9Dh5mnM7Z3ONT9NyYvZ-IQoKlz156eYtfv0L3B1y-RgfN1V69gSSzkW9bNPwCvUZ_vg |
link.rule.ids | 315,786,790,27955,27956 |
linkProvider | Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Response+evaluation+in+patients+with+colorectal+liver+metastases%3A+RECIST+version+1.1+versus+modified+CT+criteria&rft.jtitle=American+journal+of+roentgenology+%281976%29&rft.au=Chung%2C+Woo-Suk&rft.au=Park%2C+Mi-Suk&rft.au=Shin%2C+Sang+Joon&rft.au=Baek%2C+Song-Ee&rft.date=2012-10-01&rft.eissn=1546-3141&rft.volume=199&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=809&rft.epage=815&rft_id=info:doi/10.2214%2FAJR.11.7910&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0361-803X&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0361-803X&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0361-803X&client=summon |