RECIST 1.1 compared with RECIST 1.0 in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma receiving vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) is the most widely accepted method to objectively assess response to therapy in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy. Both RECIST 1.0 and 1.1 have been used to assess response to VEGF-targeted therapies; however, systematic comparisons are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Sixty-two patients with metastatic RCC treated with VEGF-targeted therapies were retrospectively studied. Tumor measurements and response assessment according to RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 were compared, including the number of target lesions, baseline measurements, response at each follow-up, best overall response, and time to progression (TTP). Morphologic changes and new enhancement were also assessed over the course of treatment, and TTP was evaluated using morphologic change criteria in combination with RECIST 1.1. RESULTS. The number of target lesions according to RECIST 1.1 was significantly fewer than by RECIST 1.0 (median, 2 vs 4; p < 0.0001). At first imaging follow-up, the percentage change of the sums of the diameter measurements by RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 were highly concordant (R = 0.857; mean shrinkage, 12.1% by RECIST 1.1 vs 10.8% by RECIST 1.0). Best response assessment was highly concordant between the two criteria (weighted κ = 0.819). There was no evidence of a difference in TTP by the two criteria, with a median TTP of 8.9 months (95% CI for the median, 5.5-13.9) by RECIST 1.1 and 8.9 months (95% CI for the median, 5.8-13.6) by RECIST 1.0. The median TTP by RECIST 1.1 alone was 8.9 months compared with 5.6 months for RECIST 1.1 and morphologic changes combined. CONCLUSION. RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 response assessments were overall highly concordant in patients with RCC treated with VEGF-targeted therapy, with fewer target lesions according to RECIST 1.1 but no difference in TTP.

• Authors: Katherine M Krajewski, Mizuki Nishino, Nikhil H Ramaiya, Toni K Choueiri
• Journal: AJR. American journal of roentgenology (AJR Am J Roentgenol) Vol. 204 Issue 3 Pg. W282-8 (Mar 2015) ISSN: 1546-3141 [Electronic] United States
• PMID: 25714313 (Publication Type: Comparative Study, Evaluation Study, Journal Article, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't)

Chemical References

• Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A

Topics

• Adult
• Aged
• Aged, 80 and over
• Carcinoma, Renal Cell (drug therapy, pathology)
• Female
• Humans
• Kidney Neoplasms (drug therapy, pathology)
• Male
• Middle Aged
• Molecular Targeted Therapy
• Neoplasm Staging
• Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
• Retrospective Studies
• Treatment Outcome
• Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A (therapeutic use)