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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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