Cargando…
International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017)
In recent years, the number of approved and investigational agents that can be safely administered for the treatment of lymphoma patients for a prolonged period of time has substantially increased. Many of these novel agents are evaluated in early-phase clinical trials in patients with a wide range...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5834038/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28379322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx097 |
_version_ | 1783303583904563200 |
---|---|
author | Younes, A. Hilden, P. Coiffier, B. Hagenbeek, A. Salles, G. Wilson, W. Seymour, J. F. Kelly, K. Gribben, J. Pfreunschuh, M. Morschhauser, F. Schoder, H. Zelenetz, A. D. Rademaker, J. Advani, R. Valente, N. Fortpied, C. Witzig, T. E. Sehn, L. H. Engert, A. Fisher, R. I. Zinzani, P.-L. Federico, M. Hutchings, M. Bollard, C. Trneny, M. Elsayed, Y. A. Tobinai, K. Abramson, J. S. Fowler, N. Goy, A. Smith, M. Ansell, S. Kuruvilla, J. Dreyling, M. Thieblemont, C. Little, R. F. Aurer, I. Van Oers, M. H. J. Takeshita, K. Gopal, A. Rule, S. de Vos, S. Kloos, I. Kaminski, M. S. Meignan, M. Schwartz, L. H. Leonard, J. P. Schuster, S. J. Seshan, V. E. |
author_facet | Younes, A. Hilden, P. Coiffier, B. Hagenbeek, A. Salles, G. Wilson, W. Seymour, J. F. Kelly, K. Gribben, J. Pfreunschuh, M. Morschhauser, F. Schoder, H. Zelenetz, A. D. Rademaker, J. Advani, R. Valente, N. Fortpied, C. Witzig, T. E. Sehn, L. H. Engert, A. Fisher, R. I. Zinzani, P.-L. Federico, M. Hutchings, M. Bollard, C. Trneny, M. Elsayed, Y. A. Tobinai, K. Abramson, J. S. Fowler, N. Goy, A. Smith, M. Ansell, S. Kuruvilla, J. Dreyling, M. Thieblemont, C. Little, R. F. Aurer, I. Van Oers, M. H. J. Takeshita, K. Gopal, A. Rule, S. de Vos, S. Kloos, I. Kaminski, M. S. Meignan, M. Schwartz, L. H. Leonard, J. P. Schuster, S. J. Seshan, V. E. |
author_sort | Younes, A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | In recent years, the number of approved and investigational agents that can be safely administered for the treatment of lymphoma patients for a prolonged period of time has substantially increased. Many of these novel agents are evaluated in early-phase clinical trials in patients with a wide range of malignancies, including solid tumors and lymphoma. Furthermore, with the advances in genome sequencing, new “basket” clinical trial designs have emerged that select patients based on the presence of specific genetic alterations across different types of solid tumors and lymphoma. The standard response criteria currently in use for lymphoma are the Lugano Criteria which are based on [(18)F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography or bidimensional tumor measurements on computerized tomography scans. These differ from the RECIST criteria used in solid tumors, which use unidimensional measurements. The RECIL group hypothesized that single-dimension measurement could be used to assess response to therapy in lymphoma patients, producing results similar to the standard criteria. We tested this hypothesis by analyzing 47 828 imaging measurements from 2983 individual adult and pediatric lymphoma patients enrolled on 10 multicenter clinical trials and developed new lymphoma response criteria (RECIL 2017). We demonstrate that assessment of tumor burden in lymphoma clinical trials can use the sum of longest diameters of a maximum of three target lesions. Furthermore, we introduced a new provisional category of a minor response. We also clarified response assessment in patients receiving novel immune therapy and targeted agents that generate unique imaging situations. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5834038 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58340382018-03-07 International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017) Younes, A. Hilden, P. Coiffier, B. Hagenbeek, A. Salles, G. Wilson, W. Seymour, J. F. Kelly, K. Gribben, J. Pfreunschuh, M. Morschhauser, F. Schoder, H. Zelenetz, A. D. Rademaker, J. Advani, R. Valente, N. Fortpied, C. Witzig, T. E. Sehn, L. H. Engert, A. Fisher, R. I. Zinzani, P.-L. Federico, M. Hutchings, M. Bollard, C. Trneny, M. Elsayed, Y. A. Tobinai, K. Abramson, J. S. Fowler, N. Goy, A. Smith, M. Ansell, S. Kuruvilla, J. Dreyling, M. Thieblemont, C. Little, R. F. Aurer, I. Van Oers, M. H. J. Takeshita, K. Gopal, A. Rule, S. de Vos, S. Kloos, I. Kaminski, M. S. Meignan, M. Schwartz, L. H. Leonard, J. P. Schuster, S. J. Seshan, V. E. Ann Oncol Reviews In recent years, the number of approved and investigational agents that can be safely administered for the treatment of lymphoma patients for a prolonged period of time has substantially increased. Many of these novel agents are evaluated in early-phase clinical trials in patients with a wide range of malignancies, including solid tumors and lymphoma. Furthermore, with the advances in genome sequencing, new “basket” clinical trial designs have emerged that select patients based on the presence of specific genetic alterations across different types of solid tumors and lymphoma. The standard response criteria currently in use for lymphoma are the Lugano Criteria which are based on [(18)F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography or bidimensional tumor measurements on computerized tomography scans. These differ from the RECIST criteria used in solid tumors, which use unidimensional measurements. The RECIL group hypothesized that single-dimension measurement could be used to assess response to therapy in lymphoma patients, producing results similar to the standard criteria. We tested this hypothesis by analyzing 47 828 imaging measurements from 2983 individual adult and pediatric lymphoma patients enrolled on 10 multicenter clinical trials and developed new lymphoma response criteria (RECIL 2017). We demonstrate that assessment of tumor burden in lymphoma clinical trials can use the sum of longest diameters of a maximum of three target lesions. Furthermore, we introduced a new provisional category of a minor response. We also clarified response assessment in patients receiving novel immune therapy and targeted agents that generate unique imaging situations. Oxford University Press 2017-07 2017-04-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5834038/ /pubmed/28379322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx097 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Reviews Younes, A. Hilden, P. Coiffier, B. Hagenbeek, A. Salles, G. Wilson, W. Seymour, J. F. Kelly, K. Gribben, J. Pfreunschuh, M. Morschhauser, F. Schoder, H. Zelenetz, A. D. Rademaker, J. Advani, R. Valente, N. Fortpied, C. Witzig, T. E. Sehn, L. H. Engert, A. Fisher, R. I. Zinzani, P.-L. Federico, M. Hutchings, M. Bollard, C. Trneny, M. Elsayed, Y. A. Tobinai, K. Abramson, J. S. Fowler, N. Goy, A. Smith, M. Ansell, S. Kuruvilla, J. Dreyling, M. Thieblemont, C. Little, R. F. Aurer, I. Van Oers, M. H. J. Takeshita, K. Gopal, A. Rule, S. de Vos, S. Kloos, I. Kaminski, M. S. Meignan, M. Schwartz, L. H. Leonard, J. P. Schuster, S. J. Seshan, V. E. International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017) |
title | International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017) |
title_full | International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017) |
title_fullStr | International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017) |
title_full_unstemmed | International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017) |
title_short | International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017) |
title_sort | international working group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (recil 2017) |
topic | Reviews |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5834038/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28379322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx097 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT younesa internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT hildenp internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT coiffierb internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT hagenbeeka internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT sallesg internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT wilsonw internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT seymourjf internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT kellyk internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT gribbenj internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT pfreunschuhm internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT morschhauserf internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT schoderh internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT zelenetzad internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT rademakerj internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT advanir internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT valenten internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT fortpiedc internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT witzigte internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT sehnlh internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT engerta internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT fisherri internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT zinzanipl internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT federicom internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT hutchingsm internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT bollardc internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT trnenym internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT elsayedya internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT tobinaik internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT abramsonjs internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT fowlern internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT goya internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT smithm internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT ansells internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT kuruvillaj internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT dreylingm internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT thieblemontc internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT littlerf internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT aureri internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT vanoersmhj internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT takeshitak internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT gopala internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT rules internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT devoss internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT kloosi internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT kaminskims internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT meignanm internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT schwartzlh internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT leonardjp internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT schustersj internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 AT seshanve internationalworkinggroupconsensusresponseevaluationcriteriainlymphomarecil2017 |