Selection of response criteria for clinical trials of sarcoma treatment

Oncologist

Volumn 13, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2008, Pages 32-40

  Schuetze, Scott M ^a   Baker, Laurence H ^a   Benjamin, Robert S ^b   Canettac, Renzo ^c  

^a Division of Hematology Oncology 3216 Cancer Center   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^c BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Imaging; Response; Sarcoma

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; IMATINIB;

BIOASSAY; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER SURVIVAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; DISEASE MARKER; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SARCOMA; TREATMENT RESPONSE; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE COURSE; METHODOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; SURVIVAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE PROGRESSION; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROGNOSIS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SARCOMA; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 47749119646     PISSN: 10837159     EISSN: 1549490X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.13-S2-32     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Fahn W, Issels RD. Emerging treatments for soft tissue sarcoma of adults. Expert Opin Emerg Drugs 2004;9:313-334.
2. Borden EC, Baker LH, Bell RS et al. Soft tissue sarcomas of adults: State of the translational science. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:1941-1956.
3. Milano A, Apice G, Ferrari E et al. New emerging drugs in soft tissue sarcoma. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2006;59:74-84.
4. Gollob JA, Bonomi P. Historic evidence and future directions in clinical trial therapy of solid tumors. Oncology (Williston Park) 2006;20(suppl 5):10-18.
5. Tannock IF. Some problems related to the design and analysis of clinical trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1992;22:881-885.
6. National Cancer Institute. Understanding the Approval Process for New Cancer Treatments. Available at http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/learning/ approval-process-for-cancer-drugs/page5. Accessed June 1, 2007.
7. Phan A, Patel S. Advances in neoadjuvant chemotherapy in soft tissue sarcomas. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2003;4:433-439.
8. Rubinstein LV. Therapeutic studies. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2000;14:849-876. ix.
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. ASCO/FDA Lung Cancer Endpoints Workshop. April 15, 2003. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/ cancer_endpoints/lungFinalSummary.doc. Accessed June 1, 2007.
10. Scott J, McGettigan G. Regulatory approvals for oncology products based on accelerated clinical development and limited datapackages-2. Regulatory Rapporteur July/August 2005:6-15.
11. Glynne-Jones R, Mawdsley S, Pearce T et al. Alternative clinical end points in rectal cancer - are we getting closer? Ann Oncol 2006; 17:1239-1248.
12. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA 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;92:205-216.
13. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B. Staquet M et al. Reporting results of cancel-treatment. Cancer 1981;47:207-214.
14. WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 1979:1-45.
15. Tsuchida Y, Therasse P. Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST): New guidelines. Med Pediatr Oncol 2001;37:1-3.
16. McHugh K, Kao S. Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST): Problems and need for modifications in paediatric oncology? Br J Radiol 2003;76:433-436.
17. Gehan E A, Tefft MC. Will there be resistance to the RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors)? J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:179-181.
18. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J. RECIST revisited: A review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:1031-1039.
19. van Klaveren RJ, Aerts JG, de Bruin H et al. Inadequacy of the RECIST criteria for response evaluation in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2004;43:63-69.
20. Tropine A, Dellani PD, Glaser M et al. Differentiation of fibroblastic meningiomas from other benign subtypes using diffusion tensor imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25:703-708.
21. Chong S, Lee KS, Chung MJ et al. Neuroendocrine tumors of the lung: Clinical, pathologic, and imaging findings. Radiographics 2006;26:41-57; discussion 57-58.
22. Miller TR, Pinkus E, Dehdashti F et al. Improved prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET using a simple visual analysis of tumor characteristics in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 2003;44:192-197.
23. Trillet-Lenoir V, Freyer G, Kaemmerlen P et al. Assessment of tumour response to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: Accuracy of theRECISTcriteria.Br J Radiol 2002;75:903-908.
24. Bond M, BernsteinML, Pappo Aet al. A phase II study of imatinib mesylate in children with refractory or re lapsed solid tumors: A Children's Oncology Group study. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2007; Jan 29 [Epub ahead of print].
25. Mazumdar M, Smith A, Schwartz LH. A statistical simulation study finds discordance between WHO criteria and RECIST guideline. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:358-365.
26. Kelloff GJ, Sullivan DM, Wilson W et al. FDG-PET Lymphoma Demonstration Project Invitational Workshop. Acad Radiol 2007; 14:330-339.
27. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, de Castro Faria S et al. CT evaluation of the response of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after imatinib mesylate treatment: A quantitative analysis correlated with FDG PET findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:1619-1628.
28. Marten K, Auer F, Schmidt S et al. Inadequacy of manual measurements compared to automated CT volumetry in assessment of treatment response of pulmonary metastases using RECIST criteria. Eur Radiol 2006;16:781-790.
29. Koh DM, Cook GJ, Husband JE. New horizons in oncologic imaging. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2487-2488.
30. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria 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;25:1753-1759.
31. Benjamin RS, Choi H, Macapinlac HA et al. We should desist using RECIST. at least in GIST. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1760-1764.
32. Bulusu VR, Jephcott CR, Fawcett S et al. RECIST and Choi criteria for response assessment (R A) in patients with inoperable and metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) on imatinib mesylate. Cambridge GIST study group experience. JClin Oncol 2007;25(suppl 18S):549s.
33. Gimel P, Hubert J. Iochum S et al. [Contribution of the latest generation CT in preoperative assessment of kidney cancer]. Prog Urol 2002; 12:1310-1317. French.
34. Lau D, Seibert A, Gandara D et al. Computer-assisted image analysis of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma. Clin Lung Cancer 2005;6:281-286.
35. Castillo E, Lawler LP. Diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine. J Surg Oncol 2005;92:191-202.
36. Avril NE, Weber WA. Monitoring response to treatment in patients utilizing PET. Radiol Clin North Am 2005;43:189-204.
37. Hawkins DS. Rajendran JG, Conrad EU 3rd et al. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in pediatric bone sarcomas by [F-18]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography. Cancer 2002;94:3277-3284.
38. Van den Abbeele AD. The lessons of GIST-PET and PET/CT: A new paradigm for imaging. The Oncologist 2008; 13(suppl 2):8-13.
39. Schuetze SM, Rubin BP, Vernon C et al. Use of positron emission tomography in localized extremity soft tissue sarcoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer 2005;103:339-348.
40. Hawkins DS, Schuetze SM, Butrynski JE et al. [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography predicts outcome for Ewing sarcoma family of tumors. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8828-8834.
41. Eschmann SM, Friedel G, Paulsen Fetal. Repeat 18F-FDGPETformoni-toring neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2007;55:165-171.
42. Westerterp M, Van Westreenen HL, Sloof GW et al. Role of positron emission tomography in the (re-)staging of oesophageal cancer. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 2006;(243):116-122.
43. Nanni C, Rubello D, Castellucci Petal. 18F-FDG PET/CT fusion imaging in paediatric solid extracranial tumours. Biomed Pharmacother 2006;60:593-606.
44. Brenner W, Bohuslavizki KH, Eary JF. PET imaging of osteosarcoma. J Nucl Med 2003;44:930-942.
45. Calvo R, Marti-Climent IM. Richter IA et al. Three-dimensional clinical PET in lung cancer: Validation and practical strategies. J Nucl Med 2000;41:439-448.
46. Fukui MB. Blodgett TM. Snyderman CH et al. Combined PET-CT in the head and neck: Part 2. Diagnostic uses and pitfalls of oncologic imaging. Radiographics 2005;25:913-930.
47. Rees J. Advances in magnetic resonance imaging of brain tumours. Curr Opin Neurol 2003;16:643-650.
48. Rahmouni A, Luciani A, Itti E. MRI and PET in monitoring response in lymphoma. Cancer Imaging 2005;5:S106-S112.
49. Rosen MA, Schnall MD. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for assessing tumor vascularity and vascular effects of targeted therapies in renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:770s-776s.
50. Preda A, Wielopolski PA, Ten Hagen TL et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using macromolecular contrast media for monitoring the response to isolated limb perfusion in experimental soft-tissue sarcomas. MAGMA 2004;17:296-302.
51. van Rijswijk CS, Geirnaerdt MJ, Hogendoorn PC et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in monitoring response to isolated limb perfusion in high-grade soft tissue sarcoma: Initial results. Eur Radiol 2003;13:1849-1858.