Non-size-based response criteria to preoperative chemotherapy in patients with colorectal liver metastases: The morphologic response criteria

Current Colorectal Cancer Reports

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 198-202

  Shindoh, Junichi ^a   Chun, Yun Shin ^b   Loyer, Evelyne M ^a   Vauthey, Jean Nicolas ^a  

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

^b FOX CHASE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemotherapy; Colorectal liver metastasis; Morphology; RECIST; Surgery

Indexed keywords

BEVACIZUMAB;

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER MORPHOLOGY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SIZE; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; COLORECTAL CANCER; DISEASE MARKER; DRUG EFFECT; DRUG RESPONSE; HUMAN; LIVER METASTASIS; LIVER RESECTION; LONG TERM SURVIVAL; MULTIMODALITY CANCER THERAPY; PREOPERATIVE CARE; RESPONSE EVALUATION CRITERIA IN SOLID TUMOR; REVIEW;

EID: 84882868513     PISSN: 15563790     EISSN: 15563804     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11888-013-0164-7     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. 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;45:228-47.
2. Jaffe CC. Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3245-51.
3. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205-16.
4. Antoch G, Kanja J, Bauer S, et al. Comparison of PET, CT, and dual-modality PET/CT imaging for monitoring of imatinib (STI571) therapy in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:357-65.
5. 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;183:1619-28.
6. Stroobants S, Goeminne J, Seegers M, et al. 18FDG-Positron emission tomography for the early prediction of response in advanced soft tissue sarcoma treated with imatinib mesylate (Glivec). Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:2012-20.
7. Thiam R, Fournier LS, Trinquart L, et al. Optimizing the size variation threshold for the CT evaluation of response in metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:936-41.
8. 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;25:1753-9.
9. Smith AD, Lieber ML, Shah SN. Assessing tumor response and detecting recurrence in metastatic renal cell carcinoma on targeted therapy: importance of size and attenuation on contrast-enhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:157-65.
10. Smith AD, Shah SN, Rini BI, et al. Morphology, attenuation, size, and structure (MASS) criteria: assessing response and predicting clinical outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma on antiangiogenic targeted therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1470-8.
11. Chun YS, Vauthey JN, Boonsirikamchai P, et al. Association of computed tomography morphologic criteria with pathologic response and survival in patients treated with bevacizumab for colorectal liver metastases. JAMA. 2009;302:2338-44. This paper and Ref. [18] first indicated the clinical relevance and predictive value of morphologic response criteria for patients undergoing chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases. These studies showed that optimal morphologic response is associated with better survival, irrespective of the chemotherapy regimens or surgical treatment used.
12. 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;19:508-15.
13. Suzuki C, Blomqvist L, Sundin A, et al. The initial change in tumor size predicts response and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with combination chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:948-54. This paper reported the limitation of the current version of RECIST in predicting patient outcomes after modern chemotherapy and also indicated the possibility of improving the diagnostic value of RECIST by modifying current cut-off values.
14. 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;19:909-14.
15. Blazer III DG, Kishi Y, Maru DM, et al. Pathologic response to preoperative chemotherapy: a new outcome end point after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5344-51.
16. Maru DM, Kopetz S, Boonsirikamchai P, et al. Tumor thickness at the tumor-normal interface: a novel pathologic indicator of chemotherapy response in hepatic colorectal metastases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:1287-94.
17. Rubbia-Brandt L, Giostra E, Brezault C, et al. Importance of histological tumor response assessment in predicting the outcome in patients with colorectal liver metastases treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by liver surgery. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:299-304.
18. • Shindoh J, Loyer EM, Kopetz S, et al. Optimal morphologic response to preoperative chemotherapy: an alternate outcome end point before resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4566-72. This paper and Ref. [11] first indicated the clinical relevance and predictive value of morphologic response criteria for patients undergoing chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases. These studies showed that optimal morphologic response is associated with better survival, irrespective of the chemotherapy regimens or surgical treatment used.