RECIST — learning from the past to build the future

Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) remain an integral part of the assessment of tumour burden in many clinical trials in oncology; these criteria are used to evaluate the activity and efficacy of new cancer therapeutics in solid tumours. We aim to define the purpose of RECIST, and reflect on the level of documentation needed to enable changes for these criteria to develop a new RECIST. Maintaining the applicability of RECIST as a standard evaluation approach is associated with many challenges, in particular with maintaining a balance between the specificity and generalizability, continued validation and innovation, and use of RECIST in early phase versus late-phase drug development, as well as its relevance in clinical trials versus clinical practice. Key questions relate to different modes of actions of new classes of treatments and new imaging modalities; thus, the RECIST Working Group remains committed to maintain RECIST as a standard for the oncology community.

[1]  E. Eisenhauer,et al.  Cancer clinical trial outcomes: any progress in tumour-size assessment? , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[2]  J. Cappelleri,et al.  Review of meta-analyses evaluating surrogate endpoints for overall survival in oncology , 2012, OncoTargets and therapy.

[3]  Stuart A. Taylor,et al.  Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies , 2016, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[4]  Bruce D Cheson,et al.  Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  Eva Forssell-Aronsson,et al.  Specific growth rate versus doubling time for quantitative characterization of tumor growth rate. , 2007, Cancer research.

[6]  E. Eisenhauer,et al.  Progression-free survival: meaningful or simply measurable? , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  Oliver Sartor,et al.  Trial Design and Objectives for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[8]  M. Burotto,et al.  Pseudoprogression and Immune-Related Response in Solid Tumors. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  C Gatsonis,et al.  Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[10]  Robert Ford,et al.  RECIST 1.1 - Standardisation and disease-specific adaptations: Perspectives from the RECIST Working Group. , 2016, European journal of cancer.

[11]  I Judson,et al.  Growth modulation index as metric of clinical benefit assessment among advanced soft tissue sarcoma patients receiving trabectedin as a salvage therapy. , 2013, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[12]  M. Okada,et al.  [New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours-revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)]. , 2009, Gan to kagaku ryoho. Cancer & chemotherapy.

[13]  S. Sleijfer,et al.  The effect of baseline morphology and its change during treatment on the accuracy of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours in assessment of liver metastases. , 2014, European Journal of Cancer.

[14]  J. Thigpen Issues in Using Progression-Free Survival When Evaluating Oncology Products , 2010 .

[15]  E. Eisenhauer,et al.  Progression-free survival as an end-point in solid tumours--perspectives from clinical trials and clinical practice. , 2014, European journal of cancer.

[16]  Robert Ford,et al.  Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[17]  Vinay Prasad,et al.  Cancer Drugs Approved on the Basis of a Surrogate End Point and Subsequent Overall Survival: An Analysis of 5 Years of US Food and Drug Administration Approvals. , 2015, JAMA internal medicine.

[18]  J. Crowley,et al.  Overview: Progression-Free Survival as an Endpoint in Clinical Trials with Solid Tumors , 2013, Clinical Cancer Research.

[19]  D. Sargent,et al.  Evaluation of alternate categorical tumor metrics and cut points for response categorization using the RECIST 1.1 data warehouse. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[20]  R J Carroll,et al.  Phase II clinical trial design for noncytotoxic anticancer agents for which time to disease progression is the primary endpoint. , 2000, Controlled clinical trials.

[21]  Axel Hoos,et al.  Guidelines for the Evaluation of Immune Therapy Activity in Solid Tumors: Immune-Related Response Criteria , 2009, Clinical Cancer Research.

[22]  B. Bot,et al.  Tumor Growth Rate Is an Early Indicator of Antitumor Drug Activity in Phase I Clinical Trials , 2013, Clinical Cancer Research.

[23]  M Van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[24]  M. van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[25]  Martin Bendszus,et al.  Response assessment criteria for brain metastases: proposal from the RANO group. , 2015, The Lancet. Oncology.