Back to Authors

Gwyther, Steve J

Mayo Clinic

East Surrey, Redhill, United Kingdom;

Citations 1

Validation of RECIST 1.1 for use with cytotoxic agents and targeted cancer agents (TCA): Results of a RECIST Working Group analysis of a 50 clinical trials pooled individual patient database.
Isaac, Gaëlle, Bogaerts, Jan , Chen, Alice P. , Dancey, Janet, Ford, Robert, Gwyther, Steve J, Huang, Erich P. , Liu, Yan , Mandrekar, Sumithra J. , Schwartz, Lawrence H., Shankar, Lalitha , Therasse, Patrick, Group, RECIST Working, Litière, Saskia , Vries, Elisabeth G.E. de , Hoekstra, Otto S. , Lin, Nancy U. , Seymour, Lesley , Group, RECIST Working

Journal of Clinical Oncology | September 6, 2018 | Volume: 35 | Issue: 15_suppl | Pages: 2534-2534

10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.2534 Get It

2534 Background: The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 were derived from an international collaborative effort supported by data from clinical trials (16 studies, 9147 patients) on cytotoxic chemotherapy (CT), providing a standard tool for response assessment. RECIST’s role has been questioned for TCA. Using a pooled individual patient database (IPD) from clinical trials performed by industry and cooperative groups, we assessed whether modifications to RECIST are required to evaluate antitumor activity of TCA. Methods: Data were collected from phase 2 and 3 clinical trials testing TCA in solid tumors. To study the occurrence of mixed responses, the variability of response of lesions within patients was studied. Furthermore, response was correlated with survival through landmark analyses and time dependent Cox models. Results: Clinical data were obtained from 23,259 patients, mainly with lung (36%), colorectal (28%) or breast cancer (11%). 15,620 patients (67%) received a TCA, mainly transduction or angiogenesis inhibitors, either as single agent (37%) or combined with other TCAs (7%) or CT (56%); 28% received CT only and 5% best supportive care or placebo. Within-patient variability reduced as the number of lesions used for response assessment increased, and did so similarly for TCAs (+/- CT) and CT. Mixed responses seemed to occur similarly across these treatment categories as well. Landmark analyses showed improving overall survival by % tumor shrinkage and a clear distinction between the effect of tumor shrinkage and progressive disease (PD) according to RECIST 1.1. This was confirmed by time dependent analysis. In addition target lesion growth showed no marked improvement in overall survival prediction over and above the other components of RECIST 1.1 PD (new lesions, non-target PD), regardless of treatment (TCA, CT or both) received. Similar results were seen focusing on major tumor types and classes of TCA. Conclusions: Using a large IPD dataset we demonstrated that RECIST 1.1 performs equally well for response assessment of TCA as for CT. No modifications are required.