From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors
- PMID: 19403881
- PMCID: PMC2755245
- DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.057307
From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to review the status and limitations of anatomic tumor response metrics including the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and RECIST 1.1. This article also reviews qualitative and quantitative approaches to metabolic tumor response assessment with (18)F-FDG PET and proposes a draft framework for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST), version 1.0.
Methods: PubMed searches, including searches for the terms RECIST, positron, WHO, FDG, cancer (including specific types), treatment response, region of interest, and derivative references, were performed. Abstracts and articles judged most relevant to the goals of this report were reviewed with emphasis on limitations and strengths of the anatomic and PET approaches to treatment response assessment. On the basis of these data and the authors' experience, draft criteria were formulated for PET tumor response to treatment.
Results: Approximately 3,000 potentially relevant references were screened. Anatomic imaging alone using standard WHO, RECIST, and RECIST 1.1 criteria is widely applied but still has limitations in response assessments. For example, despite effective treatment, changes in tumor size can be minimal in tumors such as lymphomas, sarcoma, hepatomas, mesothelioma, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor. CT tumor density, contrast enhancement, or MRI characteristics appear more informative than size but are not yet routinely applied. RECIST criteria may show progression of tumor more slowly than WHO criteria. RECIST 1.1 criteria (assessing a maximum of 5 tumor foci, vs. 10 in RECIST) result in a higher complete response rate than the original RECIST criteria, at least in lymph nodes. Variability appears greater in assessing progression than in assessing response. Qualitative and quantitative approaches to (18)F-FDG PET response assessment have been applied and require a consistent PET methodology to allow quantitative assessments. Statistically significant changes in tumor standardized uptake value (SUV) occur in careful test-retest studies of high-SUV tumors, with a change of 20% in SUV of a region 1 cm or larger in diameter; however, medically relevant beneficial changes are often associated with a 30% or greater decline. The more extensive the therapy, the greater the decline in SUV with most effective treatments. Important components of the proposed PERCIST criteria include assessing normal reference tissue values in a 3-cm-diameter region of interest in the liver, using a consistent PET protocol, using a fixed small region of interest about 1 cm(3) in volume (1.2-cm diameter) in the most active region of metabolically active tumors to minimize statistical variability, assessing tumor size, treating SUV lean measurements in the 1 (up to 5 optional) most metabolically active tumor focus as a continuous variable, requiring a 30% decline in SUV for "response," and deferring to RECIST 1.1 in cases that do not have (18)F-FDG avidity or are technically unsuitable. Criteria to define progression of tumor-absent new lesions are uncertain but are proposed.
Conclusion: Anatomic imaging alone using standard WHO, RECIST, and RECIST 1.1 criteria have limitations, particularly in assessing the activity of newer cancer therapies that stabilize disease, whereas (18)F-FDG PET appears particularly valuable in such cases. The proposed PERCIST 1.0 criteria should serve as a starting point for use in clinical trials and in structured quantitative clinical reporting. Undoubtedly, subsequent revisions and enhancements will be required as validation studies are undertaken in varying diseases and treatments.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer assessed with CT and FDG-PET/CT - RECIST 1.1 vs. PERCIST 1.0.Eur J Radiol. 2018 Apr;101:65-71. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.02.009. Epub 2018 Feb 13. Eur J Radiol. 2018. PMID: 29571803
-
Evaluating tumor response with FDG PET: updates on PERCIST, comparison with EORTC criteria and clues to future developments.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Aug;44(Suppl 1):55-66. doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3687-3. Epub 2017 Mar 30. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017. PMID: 28361188 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Comparison of RECIST, EORTC criteria and PERCIST for evaluation of early response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Oct;43(11):1945-53. doi: 10.1007/s00259-016-3420-7. Epub 2016 May 28. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016. PMID: 27236466 Clinical Trial.
-
Comparison of the RECIST and PERCIST criteria in solid tumors: a pooled analysis and review.Oncotarget. 2016 May 10;7(19):27848-54. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.8425. Oncotarget. 2016. PMID: 27036043 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Validation of several SUV-based parameters derived from 18F-FDG PET for prediction of survival after SIRT of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer.J Nucl Med. 2013 Aug;54(8):1202-8. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.112.116426. Epub 2013 May 31. J Nucl Med. 2013. PMID: 23729697
Cited by
-
Outcome prediction of SSTR-RADS-3A and SSTR-RADS-3B lesions in patients with neuroendocrine tumors based on 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/MR.J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2024 May 25;150(5):272. doi: 10.1007/s00432-024-05776-5. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2024. PMID: 38795250 Free PMC article.
-
How to design a theranostic trial?Endocr Oncol. 2024 May 10;4(1):e230045. doi: 10.1530/EO-23-0045. eCollection 2024 Jan 1. Endocr Oncol. 2024. PMID: 38770190 Free PMC article. Review.
-
[Advances in Pseudoprogression of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer].Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi. 2024 Apr 20;27(4):306-320. doi: 10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2024.101.10. Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi. 2024. PMID: 38769834 Free PMC article. Review. Chinese.
-
Dual FDG/PSMA PET imaging to predict lesion-based progression of mCRPC during PSMA-RLT.Sci Rep. 2024 May 17;14(1):11271. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-61961-z. Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 38760451 Free PMC article.
-
Joint EANM-SNMMI guideline on the role of 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT in no special type breast cancer : (endorsed by the ACR, ESSO, ESTRO, EUSOBI/ESR, and EUSOMA).Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2024 Jul;51(9):2706-2732. doi: 10.1007/s00259-024-06696-9. Epub 2024 May 14. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2024. PMID: 38740576 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Karrison TG, Maitland ML, Stadler WM, Ratain MJ. Design of phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: application to a study of sorafenib and erlotinib in non small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1455–1461. - PubMed
-
- Ratain MJ, Eckhardt SG. Phase II studies of modern drugs directed against new targets: if you are fazed, too, then resist RECIST. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4442–4445. - PubMed
-
- Rosner GL, Stadler W, Ratain MJ. Randomized discontinuation design: application to cytostatic antineoplastic agents. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:4478–4484. - PubMed
-
- Ratain MJ, Sargent DJ. Optimising the design of phase II oncology trials: the importance of randomisation. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:275–280. - PubMed
-
- Schuetze SM, Baker LH, Benjamin RS, Canetta R. Selection of response criteria for clinical trials of sarcoma treatment. Oncologist. 2008;13(suppl 2):32–40. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources