Bogaerts Jan, Ford Robert, Sargent Dan, Schwartz Lawrence H, Rubinstein Larry, Lacombe Denis, Eisenhauer Elizabeth, Verweij Jaap, Therasse Patrick
European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, Avenue Mounierlaan 83/11, Brussels, Belgium.
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):248-60. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.027. Epub 2008 Dec 16.
After the initial RECIST 1.0 were published in 2000, the criteria were widely implemented in the scientific oncology community. Since then, the RECIST working group has identified several issues to examine further. Two key issues that required careful, data-based assessment were the maximum number of lesions that should be assessed at each evaluation and the added value of requiring confirmation of response.
To address these questions, data were obtained from 16 clinical trials in metastatic cancer, with patients enrolled between 1993 and 2005. A total of 6512 patients were included in the primary analysis dataset, accounting for over 18,000 potential target lesions. Nine percent of the included patients (n=585) had six or more reported target lesions. The response and progression outcomes in the database were calculated using an adjusted RECIST methodology with a maximum of 5 (or 3) target lesions with/without confirmation and this was compared to the original RECIST version 1.0 which required up to 10 target lesions plus confirmation of response.
Assessment of 5 lesions per patient led to a difference in best overall response assignment for an estimated 209 (3.2%) patients as compared to RECIST version 1.0. However, these changes did not affect the overall response rate. Progression-free survival was only minimally affected by measuring fewer lesions. In contrast, removing the requirement for response confirmation led to a significant increase in the numbers of patients classified as responders, resulting in a relative increase of approximately 19% in response rate. An algorithm using a maximum of three target lesions shows high concordance with the 10 lesions requirement in terms of response and TTP assignment. Concern that appropriate assessment of disease within an organ requires two lesions to be followed per organ suggests the approach of following two target lesions per organ, up to a maximum of five target lesions overall. Both strategies seem reasonable based on the data warehouse. The requirement of response confirmation in trials where this is a primary end-point is recommended to be maintained as its removal would substantially increase reported response rates.
2000年最初的RECIST 1.0发布后,该标准在肿瘤学科学界得到广泛应用。从那时起,RECIST工作组确定了几个需要进一步研究的问题。两个需要基于数据进行仔细评估的关键问题是每次评估时应评估的最大病灶数以及要求确认缓解的附加价值。
为解决这些问题,从16项转移性癌症临床试验中获取数据,这些试验的患者入组时间为1993年至2005年。共有6512例患者纳入主要分析数据集,涉及超过18000个潜在靶病灶。纳入的患者中有9%(n = 585)报告有6个或更多靶病灶。使用调整后的RECIST方法计算数据库中的缓解和进展结果,最多评估5个(或3个)有/无确认的靶病灶,并将其与最初的RECIST 1.0版本进行比较,后者要求最多10个靶病灶并确认缓解。
与RECIST 1.0版本相比,每位患者评估5个病灶导致估计209例(3.2%)患者的最佳总体缓解分类存在差异。然而,这些变化并未影响总体缓解率。无进展生存期仅受到较少病灶测量的轻微影响。相比之下,去除缓解确认要求导致分类为缓解者的患者数量显著增加,缓解率相对增加约19%。使用最多3个靶病灶的算法在缓解和TTP分类方面与10个病灶要求具有高度一致性。担心对器官内疾病进行适当评估需要每个器官跟踪两个病灶,这表明每个器官跟踪两个靶病灶、总共最多5个靶病灶的方法。基于数据仓库,这两种策略似乎都合理。对于以缓解确认为主要终点的试验,建议维持缓解确认要求,因为去除该要求会大幅提高报告的缓解率。