Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제11권6호
  • /
  • Pages.618-626
  • /
  • 2010
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Molecularly Targeted Therapy Using Bevacizumab for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: a Pilot Study for the New CT Response Criteria

  • Lee, Ho-Yun (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Kyung-Soo (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Hwang, Hye-Sun (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Ju-Won (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Ahn, Myung-Ju (Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Keun-Chil (Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Tae-Sung (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Yi, Chin-A (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Chung, Myung-Jin (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2010.05.31
  • 심사 : 2010.08.24
  • 발행 : 2010.12.01
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: We wanted to compare the efficacy of the new CT response evaluation criteria for predicting the tumor progression-free survival (PFS) with that of RECIST 1.1 in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who were treated with bevacizumab. Materials and Methods: Sixteen patients (M:F = 11:5; median age, 57 years) treated with bevacizumab and combined cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents were selected for a retrospective analysis. The tumor response was assessed by four different methods, namely, by using RECIST 1.1 (RECIST), RECIST but measuring only the solid component of tumor (RECISTsolid), the alternative method reflecting tumor cavitation (the alternative method) and the combined criteria (the combined criteria) that evaluated both the changes of tumor size and attenuation. To evaluate the capabilities of the different measurement methods to predict the patient prognosis, the PFS were compared, using the log rank test, among the responder groups (complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD)) in terms of the four different methods. Results: The overall (CR, PR or SD) response rates according to RECIST, RECISTsolid, the alternative method and the combined criteria were 81%, 88%, 81% and 85%, respectively. The confirmed response rates (CR or PR) were 19%, 19%, 50% and 54%, respectively. Although statistically not significant, the alternative method showed the biggest difference for predicting PFS among the three response groups (PR, SD and PD) (p = 0.07). RECIST and the alternative method showed a significant difference for predicting the prognosis between the good (PR or SD) and poor overall responders (p = 0.02). Conclusion: The response outcome evaluations using the three different CT response criteria that reflect tumor cavitation, the ground-glass opacity component and the attenuation changes in NSCLC patients treated with bevacizumab showed different results from that with using the traditional RECIST method.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, 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 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.3.205
  2. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228-247 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
  3. Crabb SJ, Patsios D, Sauerbrei E, Ellis PM, Arnold A, Goss G, et al. Tumor cavitation: impact on objective response evaluation in trials of angiogenesis inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:404-410
  4. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, Macapinlac HA, Burgess MA, Patel SR, 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 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.07.3049
  5. Stacchiotti S, Collini P, Messina A, Morosi C, Barisella M, Bertulli R, et al. High-grade soft-tissue sarcomas: tumor response assessment--pilot study to assess the correlation between radiologic and pathologic response by using RECIST and Choi criteria. Radiology 2009;251:447-456 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2512081403
  6. Lee HY, Han J, Lee KS, Koo JH, Jeong SY, Kim BT, et al. Lung adenocarcinoma as a solitary pulmonary nodule: prognostic determinants of CT, PET, and histopathologic findings. Lung Cancer 2009;66:379-385 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2009.02.011
  7. Curran SD, Muellner AU, Schwartz LH. Imaging response assessment in oncology. Cancer Imaging 2006;6:S126-S130 https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2006.9039
  8. Gwyther SJ. Current standards for response evaluation by imaging techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:11- 15 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-006-0130-6
  9. Ratain MJ, Eckhardt SG. Phase II studies of modern drugs directed against new targets: if you are fazed, too, then resist RECIST. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:4442-4445 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.07.960
  10. Sabir A, Schor-Bardach R, Wilcox CJ, Rahmanuddin S, Atkins MB, Kruskal JB, et al. Perfusion MDCT enables early detection of therapeutic response to antiangiogenic therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191:133-139 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2848
  11. Kan Z, Phongkitkarun S, Kobayashi S, Tang Y, Ellis LM, Lee TY, et al. Functional CT for quantifying tumor perfusion in antiangiogenic therapy in a rat model. Radiology 2005;237:151- 158 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2363041293

피인용 문헌

  1. Imaging assessment of tumor response: past, present and future vol.7, pp.5, 2010, https://doi.org/10.2217/fon.11.38
  2. Tumor Size Evaluation according to the T Component of the Seventh Edition of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer's TNM Classification: Interobserver Agreement between Radiologis vol.65, pp.4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2011.65.4.381
  3. Imaging-Based Tumor Treatment Response Evaluation: Review of Conventional, New, and Emerging Concepts vol.13, pp.4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2012.13.4.371
  4. Dual-Energy CT in Patients Treated with Anti-Angiogenic Agents for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: New Method of Monitoring Tumor Response? vol.13, pp.6, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2012.13.6.702
  5. Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.0 with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1 on MRI in Advanced Breast Cancer Response Evaluation to vol.14, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2013.14.1.13
  6. Quantitative CT Variables Enabling Response Prediction in Neoadjuvant Therapy with EGFR-TKIs: Are They Different from Those in Neoadjuvant Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy? vol.9, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088598
  7. Associations between deepness of response and clinical outcomes among Japanese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with second-line FOLFIRI plus cetuximab vol.8, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2147/ott.s87101
  8. Consensus on the use of immune-related response criteria to evaluate the efficacy of immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer vol.21, pp.11, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-019-02072-4
  9. Imaging of Novel Oncologic Treatments in Lung Cancer Part 1 : Systemic Therapies vol.35, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1097/rti.0000000000000451
  10. Prognostic value of tumor cavitation in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer patients treated with anlotinib vol.146, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-019-03064-1
  11. Pearls and Pitfalls in the Imaging of Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer vol.42, pp.6, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sult.2021.04.015