CURRENT CRITERIA OF RADIAL DIAGNOSTICS TO ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIFIC CANCER TREATMENT


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Evaluation of tumor treatment response plays an important role in oncology. There were no precise methods for pre-operative assessment of tumor size until the wide introduction of CT and MRI. WHO criteria were introduced in 1979 were the first, but they had considerable limitations. It was the reason for creation of the relevant RECIST 1.0 and 1.1. With invention of new chemotherapy protocols approaches to treatment response assessment were changed. Therefore, new criteria of response to therapyf or some specific histological types of malignant tumors were developed. During the last few years, a necessity for developing specific treatment response criteria using PET/CT emerged; PERCIST 1.0 criteria are a useful tool for evaluation of tumor response by PET/CT. Wide usage of PERCIST 1.0 allows improved assessment of therapy response in general.

About the authors

P. V Gelezhe

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University; Europe Medical Center

Email: gelezhe.pavel@gmail.com
клинический ординатор каф. лучевой диагностики и терапии; стажер врача-рентгенолога 119991, Moscow, Russian Federation; 129090, Moscow , Russian Federation

S. P Morozov

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University; Europe Medical Center

119991, Moscow, Russian Federation; 129090, Moscow , Russian Federation

Y. E Mandelblat

Europe Medical Center

129090, Moscow , Russian Federation

E. I.2 Libson

Europe Medical Center

129090, Moscow , Russian Federation

References

  1. Ширяев С.В., Долгушин Б.И., Хмелев А.В. Перспективы клинического применения позитронной эмиссионной томографии в онкологии. Медицинская физика. 2005; 2: 77-83.
  2. Долгушин Б. И., Тюрин И. Е., Лукьянченко А. Б., Медведева Б. М., Дронова Е. Л., Шима Вольфган, Рингл Гельмут. Стан дарты проведения КТ и МРТ исследований в онкологии с использованием внутривенного контрастного усиления. Лучевая диагностика и терапия. 2010; 4: 88-100.
  3. WHO Handbook for Reporting results of Cancer Treatment. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1979.
  4. Therasse P., Arbuck S.G., Eisenhauer E.A. 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. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92: 205-16.
  5. Verweij J., Therasse P., Eisenhauer. Ed. Cancer clinical trial outcomes: any progress in tumour-size assessment? Eur. J. Cancer. 2009; 45: 225-7.
  6. Bogaerts J., Ford R., Sargent D. et al. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. Eur. J. Cancer. 2009; 45(2): 248-60.
  7. James K., Eisenhauer E., Christian M. et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional vs bidimensional measurement. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 1999; 91(6): 523-8.
  8. Wahl R., Jacene H., Kasamon Y., Lodge M. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J. Nucl. Med. 2009; 50 (5, Suppl.).
  9. Benjamin R.S., Choi H., Macapinlac H.A. et al. We should desist using RECIST, at least in GIST. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007; 25: 1760-4.
  10. Choi H., Charnsangavej C., Faria S.C. et al.Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007; 25: 1753-9.
  11. Llovet J.M., Ricci S., Mazzaferro V. et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma N. Engl. J. Med. 2008; 359: 378-90.
  12. Vossen J.A., Buijs M., Kamel I.R. Assessment of tumor response on MR imaging after locoregional therapy. Tech. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2006; 9(3): 125-32.
  13. Llovet J.M., Di Bisceglie A.M., Bruix J. et al. Design and endpoints of clinical trials in hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2008; 100(10): 698-711.
  14. Forner A., Ayuso C., Varela M. et al. Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: are response evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable? Cancer. 2009; 115: 616-23.
  15. Jochelson M., Mauch P., Balikian J., Rosenthal D., Canellos G. The significance of the residual mediatinal mass in the treated Hodgkin’s disease. J. Clin. Oncol. 1985; 3: 637-40.
  16. Israel O., Mor M., Epelbaum R. et al. Clinical pretreatment risk factors and Ga-67 scintigraphy early during treatment for prediction of outcome of patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer. 2002; 94: 873-8.
  17. MacManus M.P., Hicks R.J., Matthews J.P., Wirth A., Rischin D., Ball D.L. Metabolic (FDG-PET) response after radical radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer correlates with patterns of failure. Lung Cancer. 2005; 49: 95-108.
  18. Duong C.P., Hicks R.J., Weih L. et al. FDG-PET status following chemoradiotherapy provides high management impact and powerful prognostic stratification in oesophageal cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag. 2006; 33: 770-8.
  19. Young H., Baum R., Cremerius U. et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur. J. Cancer. 1999; 35: 1773-82.
  20. Juweid M.E., Stroobants S., Hoekstra O.S., Mottaghy F.M., Dietlein M., Guermazi A. et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: Consensus recommendations of the Imaging Subcommittee of the International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007; 25: 571-8.

Copyright (c) 2014 Eco-Vector


 


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies