Cancer Imaging (Nov 2024)

A call for objectivity: Radiologists’ proposed wishlist for response evaluation in solid tumors (RECIST 1.1)

  • Kathleen Ruchalski,
  • Jordan M. Anaokar,
  • Matthias R. Benz,
  • Rohit Dewan,
  • Michael L. Douek,
  • Jonathan G. Goldin

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-024-00802-8
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24, no. 1
pp. 1 – 7

Abstract

Read online

Abstract The Response Evaluation in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 provides key guidance for performing imaging response assessment and defines image-based outcome metrics in oncology clinical trials, including progression free survival. In this framework, tumors identified on imaging are designated as either target lesions, non-target disease or new lesions and a structured categorical response is assigned at each imaging time point. While RECIST provides definitions for these categories, it specifically and objectively defines only the target disease. Predefined thresholds of size change provide unbiased metrics for determining objective response and disease progression of the target lesions. However, worsening of non-target disease or emergence of new lesions is given the same importance in determining disease progression despite these being qualitatively assessed and less rigorously defined. The subjective assessment of non-target and new disease contributes to reader variability, which can impact the quality of image interpretation and even the determination of progression free survival. The RECIST Working Group has made significant efforts in developing RECIST 1.1 beyond its initial publication, particularly in its application to targeted agents and immunotherapy. A review of the literature highlights that the Working Group has occasionally employed or adopted objective measures for assessing non-target and new lesions in their evaluation of RECIST-based outcome measures. Perhaps a prospective evaluation of these more objective definitions for non-target and new lesions within the framework of RECIST 1.1 might improve reader interpretation. Ideally, these changes could also better align with clinically meaningful outcome measures of patient survival or quality of life.

Keywords