Limitations with the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) guidance in disseminated pediatric malignancy

被引:29
作者
Barnacle, AM [1 ]
McHugh, K [1 ]
机构
[1] Great Ormond St Hosp Children, Dept Radiol, London WC1N 3JH, England
关键词
pediatric oncology; radiology; response criteria; solid tumors;
D O I
10.1002/pbc.20344
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background. Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) guidelines were published in 2000 to evaluate response to treatment in solid tumors. These have Sought to unify response assessment, and the new guidelines extend beyond lesion assessment to address modern imaging strategies. The RECIST guidelines, however, become complex and problematic when used to evaluate metastatic disease. Methods. Ten consecutive oncology cases representative of tumors common to our pediatric practice were selected. All cases were evaluated at initial presentation and follow-up. The RECIST criteria were retrospectively applied in each case. A standardized evaluation form was used. Results. The age range of the patients included in the study was 1 month to 16 years, with a mean age of 3.9 years. A range Of tumor responses was identified: partial response (n = 6), stable disease (n = 2), and progressive disease (n = 2). Two of these responses were likely incorrect. Tumor bulk was underestimated i the axial plane, many lesions were either calcified and UnmeaSUrable, or despite being well-defined were too small to be measurable under the strict RECIST guidance. Conclusion. In highlighting specific problems with disseminated pediatric tumors, we emphasize the pressing need for debate regarding the application of RECIST in pediatric oncology and encourage the development of a pediatric radiology oncology group to collaborate in future modifications of the RECIST guidance.
引用
收藏
页码:127 / 134
页数:8
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]   Evaluation of the response to treatment of solid tumours - a consensus statement of the International Cancer Imaging Society [J].
Husband, JE ;
Schwartz, LH ;
Spencer, J ;
Ollivier, L ;
King, DM ;
Johnson, R ;
Reznek, R .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2004, 90 (12) :2256-2260
[2]   Measuring response in solid tumors: Unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement [J].
James, K ;
Eisenhauer, E ;
Christian, M ;
Terenziani, M ;
Vena, D ;
Muldal, A ;
Therasse, P .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1999, 91 (06) :523-528
[3]  
James K, 1999, J NATL CANCER I, V91, P1780, DOI 10.1093/jnci/91.20.1780
[4]   UTERINE CERVICAL-CARCINOMA - EVALUATION OF PELVIC LYMPH-NODE METASTASIS WITH MR-IMAGING [J].
KIM, SH ;
KIM, SC ;
CHOI, BI ;
HAN, MC .
RADIOLOGY, 1994, 190 (03) :807-811
[5]   Can paediatric radiologists resist RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours)? [J].
McHugh, K ;
Kao, S .
PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY, 2003, 33 (11) :739-743
[6]  
MILLER AB, 1981, CANCER, V47, P207, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19810101)47:1<207::AID-CNCR2820470134>3.0.CO
[7]  
2-6
[8]   Are current tumour response criteria relevant for the 21st century? [J].
Padhani, AR ;
Husband, JE .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2000, 73 (874) :1031-1033
[9]   Commentary - The RECIST criteria: implications for diagnostic radiologists [J].
Padhani, AR ;
Ollivier, L .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2001, 74 (887) :983-986
[10]   CT assessment of tumour response to treatment: comparison of linear, cross-sectional and volumetric measures of tumour size [J].
Sohaib, SA ;
Turner, B ;
Hanson, JA ;
Farquharson, M ;
Oliver, RTD ;
Reznek, RH .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2000, 73 (875) :1178-1184