Search

Purpose: To compare the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria and the Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) 1.0 using PET volume computer-assisted reading (PET VCAR) for response evaluation in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with chemotherapy. Methods: A total of 35 patients with NSCLC were included in this prospective study. All patients received standard chemotherapy and underwent F-FDG PET/CT scans before and after treatment. With the assistance of PET VCAR, the chemotherapeutic responses were evaluated according to the RECIST 1.1, EORTC criteria and PERCIST 1.0. Concordance among these protocols was assessed using Cohen's κ coefficient and Wilcoxon's signed-ranks test. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier test. Results: RECIST 1.1 and EORTC response classifications were discordant in 20 patients (57.1 %; κ = 0.194, P < 0.05), and RECIST 1.1 and PERCIST 1.0 classifications were discordant in 22 patients (62.9 %; κ = 0.139, P < 0.05). EORTC and PERCIST 1.0 classifications were discordant in only 4 patients (11.4 %), resulting in better concordance ( κ = 0.804, P > 0.05). Patients with a partial remission according to RECIST 1.1 had significantly longer PFS ( P < 0.001) than patients with progressive disease, but not significantly longer than patients with stable disease ( P = 0.855). According to both the EORTC criteria and PERCIST 1.0, patients with a partial metabolic response had a significantly longer PFS than those with stable metabolic disease and those with progressive metabolic disease ( P = 0.020 and P < 0.001, respectively, for EORTC; both P < 0.001 for PERCIST 1.0). Conclusion: EORTC criteria and PERCIST 1.0 are more sensitive and accurate than RECIST 1.1 for the detection of an early therapeutic response to chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC. Although EORTC criteria and PERCIST 1.0 showed similar results, PERCIST 1.0 is preferred because detailed and unambiguous definitions are given. We also found that response evaluations with PERCIST 1.0 using a single lesion and multiple lesions gave similar response classifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]