Clinical Investigation
Comparison of RECIST1.1, PERCIST1.0, WHO and EORTC in the evaluation of treatment response in colorectal liver metastases after neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Qian Xia, Cheng Wu, Linjun Tong, Yiping Shi, Dewei Tang, Chunfeng Shen, Liangrong Wan, Bo Xu, Gang Huang, Jianjun Liu
Published 2017-09-25
Cite as Chin J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2017, 37(9): 559-563. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-2848.2017.09.008
Abstract
ObjectiveTo compare treatment response according to the PERCIST1.0, RECIST1.1, EORTC, and WHO criteria in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM) who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
MethodsA total of 41 CLM patients (27 males, average age 68.48 years; 14 females, average age 62.43 years) from January 2010 to September 2013 were included in this retrospective study. PET/CT scan was performed before chemotherapy and after 4-6 cycles′ chemotherapy. The baseline and the sequential follow-up 18F-FDG PET/CT of each patient were evaluated according to the PERCIST1.0, RECIST1.1, EORTC, and WHO criteria. The response was categorized into 4 levels including CR, PR, SD, PD. PET/CT images were used for both metabolic and anatomic evaluation. The concurrent diagnostic CT or MRI images (performed within 1 week of PET/CT) were also utilized when needed. The agreements of criteria were analyzed using Kappa test. The response rate (RR) and disease control rate (DCR) were compared using χ2 test.
ResultsThe RR and DCR according to the PERCIST1.0, EORTC and RECIST1.1 criteria were 31.71%(13/41) and 63.41%(26/41), 31.71%(13/41) and 60.98%(25/41), 17.07%(7/41) and 68.29%(28/41), respectively. The general comparison of PERCIST1.0 and RECIST1.1, EORTC and RECIST1.1 criteria showed good agreements (κ values: 0.711, 0.689). Significant difference was not found in the DCR(χ2=2.000, P>0.05) but found in the RR(χ2=6.000, P<0.05) between PERCIST1.0 and RECIST1.1. Difference of DCR between EORTC and RECIST1.1 was not significant(χ2=3.000, P>0.05), while the RR had significant difference(χ2=6.000, P<0.05). The RR and DCR according to WHO criterion were 12.20%(5/41) and 70.73%(29/41), which had a good consistency with those according to PERCIST1.0 criteria (κ=0.629). Significant statistical difference was not found in the DCR(χ2=3.000, P>0.05) but found in the RR(χ2=8.000, P<0.05) between PERCIST1.0 and WHO criteria.
ConclusionsIn evaluating CLM treatment response, anatomical criteria and metabolic criteria have a good consistency. But metabolic criteria are more sensitive for RR evaluating.
Key words:
Colorectal neoplasms; Neoplasms metastasis; Liver; Neoadjuvant therapy; Positron-emission tomography; Tomography, X-ray computed; Deoxyglucose
Contributor Information
Qian Xia
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200127, China
Cheng Wu
Department of Health Statistics, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200433, China
Linjun Tong
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200127, China
Yiping Shi
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200127, China
Dewei Tang
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200127, China
Chunfeng Shen
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200127, China
Liangrong Wan
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200127, China
Bo Xu
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200127, China
Gang Huang
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200127, China
Jianjun Liu
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200127, China
