Comparison of RECIST, iRECIST, and PERCIST for the Evaluation of Response to PD-1/PD-L1 Blockade Therapy in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.


Journal

Clinical nuclear medicine
ISSN: 1536-0229
Titre abrégé: Clin Nucl Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7611109

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 26 4 2019
medline: 16 8 2019
entrez: 26 4 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The aim of this study was to compare the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, the immune RECIST (iRECIST) criteria, and the Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) 1.0 in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death protein 1 ligand (PD-L1) inhibitors. This prospective study of 42 patients treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor was approved by our institutional review board, and all patients gave written, informed consent. Tumor burden dynamics were assessed on F-FDG PET/CT before and after treatment initiation. Immunotherapeutic responses were evaluated according to RECIST 1.1, iRECIST, and PERCIST 1.0 for the dichotomous groups, responders versus nonresponders. Cohen κ and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to evaluate concordance among these criteria. We assessed progression-free survival and overall survival using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. The RECIST 1.1 and PERCIST 1.0 response classifications were discordant in 6 patients (14.2%; κ = 0.581). RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST were discordant in 2 patients, who evidenced pseudoprogression after treatment initiation. Median progression-free survival, as well as overall survival, was significantly longer for responders compared with nonresponders for all criteria (P < 0.001), with no significant difference between the 3 criteria (P > 0.05). RECIST 1.1 and PERCIST 1.0 show only moderate agreement, but both can predict treatment response to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy. In case of pseudoprogression, metabolic tumor activity may help to correctly classify treatment response.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31021918
doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000002603
doi:

Substances chimiques

Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized 0
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological 0
Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor 0
Radiopharmaceuticals 0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 0Z5B2CJX4D

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

535-543

Auteurs

Maximilian Hochmair (M)

Respiratory Oncology Unit, Otto-Wagner Hospital, Vienna.

Thorsten Fuereder (T)

Department of Internal Medicine I & CCC, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Hannah Fabikan (H)

Respiratory Oncology Unit, Otto-Wagner Hospital, Vienna.

Andreas Fazekas (A)

Respiratory Oncology Unit, Otto-Wagner Hospital, Vienna.

Sophia Schwab (S)

Respiratory Oncology Unit, Otto-Wagner Hospital, Vienna.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH