The initial change in tumor size predicts response and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with combination chemotherapy

Annals of Oncology

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 948-954

  Suzuki, C ^a   Blomqvist, L ^a   Sundin, A ^a   Jacobsson, H ^a   Bystrom P ^b,c   Berglund, A ^b   Nygren, P ^b   Glimelius, B ^b,c  

^a KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Imaging; Metastatic colorectal cancer; Response evaluation; Survival

Indexed keywords

FLUOROURACIL; IRINOTECAN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER SIZE; CANCER SURVIVAL; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG EFFICACY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MALIGNANT TRANSFORMATION; METASTASIS; MULTICENTER STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SURVIVAL TIME; TUMOR VOLUME;

EID: 84859480685     PISSN: 09237534     EISSN: 15698041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdr350     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization 1979.
2. 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.
3. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 228-247.
4. Moertel CG, Hanley JA. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer 1976; 38: 388-394.
5. James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 523-528.
6. Punt CJ, Buyse M, Kohne CH et al. Endpoints in adjuvant treatment trials: a systematic review of the literature in colon cancer and proposed definitions for future trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 998-1003.
7. Graf W, Pahlman L, Bergstrom R, Glimelius B. The relationship between an objective response to chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 1994; 70: 559-563.
8. Buyse M, Piedbois P. On the relationship between response to treatment and survival time. Stat Med 1996; 15: 2797-2812.
9. Buyse M, Thirion P, Carlson RW et al. Relation between tumour response to firstline chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer. Lancet 2000; 356: 373-378.
10. De Roock W, Piessevaux H, De Schutter J et al. KRAS wild-type state predicts survival and is associated to early radiological response in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 508-515.
11. Piessevaux H, Buyse M, De Roock W et al. Radiological tumor size decrease at week 6 is a potent predictor of outcome in chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab (BOND trial). Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 1375-1382.
12. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG, Burger C et al. Prognostic aspects of 18F-FDG PET kinetics in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma receiving FOLFOX chemotherapy. J Nucl Med 2004; 45: 1480-1487.
13. de Geus-Oei LF, van Laarhoven HW, Visser EP et al. Chemotherapy response evaluation with FDG-PET in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 348-352.
14. Bystrom P, Berglund A, Garske U et al. Early prediction of response to first-line chemotherapy by sequential [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 1057-1061.
15. Glazer ES, Beaty K, Abdalla EK et al. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography for predicting chemotherapy response in colorectal cancer liver metastases. Arch Surg 2010; 145: 340-345; discussion 345.
16. Claret L, Girard P, Hoff PM et al. Model-based prediction of phase III overall survival in colorectal cancer on the basis of phase II tumor dynamics. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4103-4108. Epub 2009 Jul 4127.
17. Glimelius B, Sorbye H, Balteskard L et al. A randomized phase III multicenter trial comparing irinotecan in combination with the Nordic bolus 5-FU and folinic acid schedule or the bolus/infused de Gramont schedule (Lv5FU2) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 909-914.
18. Piessevaux H, Schlichting M, Heeger S et al. Early tumor shrinkage for the prediction of efficacy of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): analysis from the CRYSTAL study. Abstracts of the 35th European Society for Medical Oncology Conference. October 8-12, 2010. Milan, Italy. Ann Oncol. 2010; 21(Suppl 8): viii193-viii194.
19. Nygren P, Blomqvist L, Bergh J, Astrom G. Radiological assessment of tumour response to anti-cancer drugs: time to reappraise. Acta Oncol 2008; 47: 316-318.
20. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC 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.
21. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009; 50 (Suppl 1): 122S-150S.
22. Steel GG. The case against apoptosis. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 968-975.
23. Fabel M, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Giesel FL et al. Semi-automated volumetric analysis of lymph node metastases in patients with malignant melanoma stage III/IV-A feasibility study. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 1114-1122.
24. Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2574-2582.
25. 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.
26. Jacene HA, Leboulleux S, Baba S et al. Assessment of interobserver reproducibility in quantitative 18F-FDG PET and CT measurements of tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med 2009; 50: 1760-1769.
27. Schwartz LH, Ginsberg MS, DeCorato D et al. Evaluation of tumor measurements in oncology: use of film-based and electronic techniques. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 2179-2184.