Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 25, No 13 (May 1), 2007: pp. 1760-1764
© 2007 American Society of Clinical Oncology.
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.3411
We Should Desist Using RECIST, at Least in GIST
Robert S. Benjamin,
Haesun Choi,
Homer A. Macapinlac,
Michael A. Burgess,
Shreyaskumar R. Patel,
Lei L. Chen,
Donald A. Podoloff,
Chuslip Charnsangavej
From the Department of Sarcoma Medical Oncology and the Division of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Address reprint requests to Robert S. Benjamin, MD, Department of Sarcoma Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 450, Houston, TX 77030; e-mail: rbenjami{at}mdanderson.org
Purpose Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are insensitive in evaluating imatinib-treated gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Response by Choi criteria, a 10% decrease in size or a 15% decrease in density on contrast-enhanced CT, correlated well in a small training set of patients who showed response as measured by positron emission tomography, and was more predictive of time to tumor progression (TTP) than response by RECIST. This study was designed to validate these observations in an independent data set.
Patients and Methods Fifty-eight patients with imatinib-treated GISTs were evaluated by RECIST and Choi criteria. TTP was compared with TTP in the training set. Patients were analyzed initially with follow-up to 28 months, extended to 60 months for survival analysis.
Results Patients who met Choi response criteria on CT at 2 months had significantly better TTP than those who did not (P = .0002), whereas response group by RECIST was not significantly correlated with TTP. Even when the 98 patients from both sets were analyzed together, the response group by RECIST did not correlate significantly with TTP, whereas response group by Choi criteria did correlate significantly with TTP. Disease-specific survival (DSS) was also significantly correlated with response group by Choi criteria (P = .04), but not with response group by RECIST.
Conclusion Choi response criteria are reproducible, more sensitive, and more precise than RECIST in assessing the response of GISTs to imatinib mesylate. Response by Choi criteria, unlike response by RECIST, correlates significantly with TTP and DSS. Response by Choi criteria should be incorporated routinely into future studies of GIST therapy. We should desist using RECIST, at least in GIST.
Supported by National Cancer Institute Contracts No. U01-CA70172-01 and N01-CM-17003.
Presented in part at the 8th Annual Meeting of the Connective Tissue Oncology Society, November 6-8, 2003, Barcelona, Spain; and the 42nd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, June 2-6, 2006, Atlanta, GA.
Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
K.-S. Park, J.-L. Lee, H. Ahn, J.-M. Koh, I. Park, J.-S. Choi, Y. R. Kim, T. S. Park, J.-H. Ahn, D. H. Lee, et al.
Sunitinib, a Novel Therapy for Anthracycline- and Cisplatin-refractory Malignant Pheochromocytoma
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol.,
May 1, 2009;
39(5):
327 - 331.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. L. Wahl, H. Jacene, Y. Kasamon, and M. A. Lodge
From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors
J. Nucl. Med.,
May 1, 2009;
50(Suppl_1):
122S - 150S.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Stacchiotti, P. Collini, A. Messina, C. Morosi, M. Barisella, R. Bertulli, C. Piovesan, P. Dileo, V. Torri, A. Gronchi, et al.
High-Grade Soft-Tissue Sarcomas: Tumor Response Assessment--Pilot Study to Assess the Correlation between Radiologic and Pathologic Response by Using RECIST and Choi Criteria
Radiology,
May 1, 2009;
251(2):
447 - 456.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
T. W. Kim, M.-H. Ryu, H. Lee, S. J. Sym, J.-L. Lee, H. M. Chang, Y. S. Park, K. H. Lee, W. K. Kang, D. B. Shin, et al.
Kinase Mutations and Efficacy of Imatinib in Korean Patients with Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors
Oncologist,
May 1, 2009;
14(5):
540 - 547.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. G. Casali, L. Jost, P. Reichardt, M. Schlemmer, J.-Y. Blay, and On behalf of the ESMO Guidelines Working Group
Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: ESMO Clinical Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
Ann. Onc.,
May 1, 2009;
20(suppl_4):
iv64 - iv67.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Santarosa, L. Del Col, E. Tonin, A. Caragnano, A. Viel, and R. Maestro
Premature senescence is a major response to DNA cross-linking agents in BRCA1-defective cells: implication for tailored treatments of BRCA1 mutation carriers
Mol. Cancer Ther.,
April 1, 2009;
8(4):
844 - 854.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
L. K. Shankar, A. Van den Abbeele, J. Yap, R. Benjamin, S. Scheutze, and T.J. FitzGerald
Considerations for the Use of Imaging Tools for Phase II Treatment Trials in Oncology
Clin. Cancer Res.,
March 15, 2009;
15(6):
1891 - 1897.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
N. Dhani, D. Tu, D. J. Sargent, L. Seymour, and M. J. Moore
Alternate Endpoints for Screening Phase II Studies
Clin. Cancer Res.,
March 15, 2009;
15(6):
1873 - 1882.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. J. Crabb, D. Patsios, E. Sauerbrei, P. M. Ellis, A. Arnold, G. Goss, N. B. Leighl, F. A. Shepherd, J. Powers, L. Seymour, et al.
Tumor Cavitation: Impact on Objective Response Evaluation in Trials of Angiogenesis Inhibitors in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
January 20, 2009;
27(3):
404 - 410.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. J. Stewart and R. Kurzrock
Cancer: The Road to Amiens
J. Clin. Oncol.,
January 20, 2009;
27(3):
328 - 333.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Ben-Haim and P. Ell
18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in the Evaluation of Cancer Treatment Response
J. Nucl. Med.,
January 1, 2009;
50(1):
88 - 99.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Pinter, W. Sieghart, I. Graziadei, W. Vogel, A. Maieron, R. Konigsberg, A. Weissmann, G. Kornek, C. Plank, and M. Peck-Radosavljevic
Sorafenib in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma from Mild to Advanced Stage Liver Cirrhosis
Oncologist,
January 1, 2009;
14(1):
70 - 76.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. K. Kelley and A. P. Venook
Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Separating the Hype From the Hope
J. Clin. Oncol.,
December 20, 2008;
26(36):
5845 - 5848.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. Yonesaka, K. Zejnullahu, N. Lindeman, A. J. Homes, D. M. Jackman, F. Zhao, A. M. Rogers, B. E. Johnson, and P. A. Janne
Autocrine Production of Amphiregulin Predicts Sensitivity to Both Gefitinib and Cetuximab in EGFR Wild-type Cancers
Clin. Cancer Res.,
November 1, 2008;
14(21):
6963 - 6973.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
T. H. Luu, R. J. Morgan, L. Leong, D. Lim, M. McNamara, J. Portnow, P. Frankel, D. D. Smith, J. H. Doroshow, D. R. Gandara, et al.
A Phase II Trial of Vorinostat (Suberoylanilide Hydroxamic Acid) in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A California Cancer Consortium Study
Clin. Cancer Res.,
November 1, 2008;
14(21):
7138 - 7142.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
I. E. Haines
Dose Selection in Phase I Studies: Why We Should Always Go for the Most Effective
J. Clin. Oncol.,
July 20, 2008;
26(21):
3650 - 3652.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. A.M. van der Veldt, M. R. Meijerink, A. J.M. van den Eertwegh, A. Bex, G. de Gast, J. B.A.G. Haanen, and E. Boven
Sunitinib for Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Cancer: Primary Tumor Response
Clin. Cancer Res.,
April 15, 2008;
14(8):
2431 - 2436.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. S. Benjamin
SARC-CTOS Imaging Symposium: Introduction to the Problem from a Clinical Perspective
Oncologist,
April 1, 2008;
13(suppl_2):
1 - 3.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. Choi
Response Evaluation of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors
Oncologist,
April 1, 2008;
13(suppl_2):
4 - 7.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. M. Schuetze, L. H. Baker, R. S. Benjamin, and R. Canetta
Selection of Response Criteria for Clinical Trials of Sarcoma Treatment
Oncologist,
April 1, 2008;
13(suppl_2):
32 - 40.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. D. Blanke, G. D. Demetri, M. von Mehren, M. C. Heinrich, B. Eisenberg, J. A. Fletcher, C. L. Corless, C. D.M. Fletcher, P. J. Roberts, D. Heinz, et al.
Long-Term Results From a Randomized Phase II Trial of Standard- Versus Higher-Dose Imatinib Mesylate for Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors Expressing KIT
J. Clin. Oncol.,
February 1, 2008;
26(4):
620 - 625.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. D. Blanke, C. Rankin, G. D. Demetri, C. W. Ryan, M. von Mehren, R. S. Benjamin, A. K. Raymond, V. H.C. Bramwell, L. H. Baker, R. G. Maki, et al.
Phase III Randomized, Intergroup Trial Assessing Imatinib Mesylate At Two Dose Levels in Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors Expressing the Kit Receptor Tyrosine Kinase: S0033
J. Clin. Oncol.,
February 1, 2008;
26(4):
626 - 632.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. H. Holdsworth, R. D. Badawi, J. B. Manola, M. F. Kijewski, D. A. Israel, G. D. Demetri, and A. D. Van den Abbeele
CT and PET: Early Prognostic Indicators of Response to Imatinib Mesylate in Patients with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor
Am. J. Roentgenol.,
December 1, 2007;
189(6):
W324 - W330.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
L. V. Rubinstein, J. E. Dancey, E. L. Korn, M. A. Smith, and J. J. Wright
Early Average Change in Tumor Size in a Phase 2 Trial: Efficient Endpoint or False Promise?
J Natl Cancer Inst,
October 3, 2007;
99(19):
1422 - 1423.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|