Modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors : A better response evaluation criteria for patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer after bevacizumab treatment
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd..
AIM: Cavitation of lesions is common in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (non-squamous-NSCLC) patients treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFRIs). However, traditional response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) do not take cavitation into consideration and may no longer be accurate for potentially reflecting the real clinical efficacy of anti-vessel growth therapy. Here, we aimed to optimize the traditional RECIST version 1.1 by adding cavitation into the evaluation criteria.
METHODS: We performed a post-hoc radiologic review of 517 patients in a phase III clinical trial of bevacizumab biosimilar (SIBP04) combined with chemotherapy for the treatment of non-squamous NSCLC. Tumor responses were assessed by RECIST1.1 and mRECIST criteria (modified RECIST, a novel alternate method where the longest diameter of the cavity was subtracted from the overall longest diameter of that lesion to measure target lesions), respectively, and correlated with clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: Cavitations of pulmonary lesions were seen in nine (2%) patients at baseline, and 97 (19%) during treatment. The use of mRECIST resulted in an alteration of the response category. For patients with post-therapy cavitation, the objective response rate was 56% using RECIST1.1 and 67% by mRECIST. In addition, the survival rates between partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease when the mRECIST was applied were significantly different (p < 0.05), while RECIST1.1 failed to show survival differences (p = 0.218).
CONCLUSION: For patients with post-therapy cavitation, mRECIST exhibited higher predictability of survival than RECIST1.1. Response assessment might be improved by incorporating cavitation into assessment, potentially altering outcomes of key clinical efficacy parameters.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:20 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology - 20(2024), 1 vom: 25. Feb., Seite 101-108 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Huang, Yubao [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
2S9ZZM9Q9V |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 29.03.2024 Date Revised 29.03.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1111/ajco.14014 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM363908404 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM363908404 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240330000518.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/ajco.14014 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1355.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM363908404 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)37898825 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Huang, Yubao |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors |b A better response evaluation criteria for patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer after bevacizumab treatment |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 29.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 29.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. | ||
| 520 | |a AIM: Cavitation of lesions is common in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (non-squamous-NSCLC) patients treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFRIs). However, traditional response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) do not take cavitation into consideration and may no longer be accurate for potentially reflecting the real clinical efficacy of anti-vessel growth therapy. Here, we aimed to optimize the traditional RECIST version 1.1 by adding cavitation into the evaluation criteria | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: We performed a post-hoc radiologic review of 517 patients in a phase III clinical trial of bevacizumab biosimilar (SIBP04) combined with chemotherapy for the treatment of non-squamous NSCLC. Tumor responses were assessed by RECIST1.1 and mRECIST criteria (modified RECIST, a novel alternate method where the longest diameter of the cavity was subtracted from the overall longest diameter of that lesion to measure target lesions), respectively, and correlated with clinical outcomes | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Cavitations of pulmonary lesions were seen in nine (2%) patients at baseline, and 97 (19%) during treatment. The use of mRECIST resulted in an alteration of the response category. For patients with post-therapy cavitation, the objective response rate was 56% using RECIST1.1 and 67% by mRECIST. In addition, the survival rates between partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease when the mRECIST was applied were significantly different (p < 0.05), while RECIST1.1 failed to show survival differences (p = 0.218) | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: For patients with post-therapy cavitation, mRECIST exhibited higher predictability of survival than RECIST1.1. Response assessment might be improved by incorporating cavitation into assessment, potentially altering outcomes of key clinical efficacy parameters | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a RECIST1.1 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a bevacizumab | |
| 650 | 4 | |a mRECIST | |
| 650 | 4 | |a non‐squamous non‐small cell lung cancer | |
| 650 | 4 | |a tumor cavitation | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Bevacizumab |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a 2S9ZZM9Q9V |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yang, Yunkai |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Qu, Aidong |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Li, Sixiu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chen, Dandan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zou, Hongxia |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Li, Songsong |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhang, Yaowen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhuang, Wei |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Su, Jing |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhou, Xu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhang, Yuntao |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology |d 2010 |g 20(2024), 1 vom: 25. Feb., Seite 101-108 |w (DE-627)NLM197405231 |x 1743-7563 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:20 |g year:2024 |g number:1 |g day:25 |g month:02 |g pages:101-108 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajco.14014 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 20 |j 2024 |e 1 |b 25 |c 02 |h 101-108 | ||