The RECIST criteria compared to conventional response evaluation after peptide receptor radionuclide therapy in patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms
Objective The Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) is the most used radiological method for evaluating response after peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. This method may give too positive estimates of response in slow growing tumors a...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Annals of nuclear medicine 2019-03, Vol.33 (3), p.147-152 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Objective
The Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) is the most used radiological method for evaluating response after peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. This method may give too positive estimates of response in slow growing tumors as it allows a substantial increase in tumor size before patients are classified as having progressive disease. We wanted to compare RECIST with a conventional method in routine use for estimating treatment effect based on defining any unequivocal increase in size of tumor load as progressive disease. We also wanted to investigate whether any differences had clinical implications.
Methods
Patients treated with
177
Lutetium-DOTA-octreotate having at least one follow-up radiological response evaluation were included. Radiological examinations were retrospectively evaluated by RECIST and compared to the radiological evaluations performed at regular follow-up examinations.
Results
Seventy-nine patients were included, 33 (42%) were women, median age 65 years. The primary tumors was located in the small intestine in 35 (44%) and the in the pancreas in 27 (34%) of the patients. Indication for treatment was progressive disease in 71 (90%) patients. Based on RECIST, 67 (85%) patients had objective response or stable disease as best effect versus 59 (75%) patients based on the conventional method (
p
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 0914-7187 1864-6433 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s12149-018-1316-2 |