Cargando…
RECIST 1.1 versus mRECIST for assessment of tumour response to molecular targeted therapies and disease outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
OBJECTIVES: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) and modified RECIST (mRECIST) are commonly used to assess tumour response. Which one is better to evaluate efficacy after molecular targeted therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients is still controversial....
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9161105/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35649603 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052294 |
_version_ | 1784719416087281664 |
---|---|
author | Yu, Hongli Bai, Yuping Xie, Xiaoyu Feng, Yuemin Yang, Yao Zhu, Qiang |
author_facet | Yu, Hongli Bai, Yuping Xie, Xiaoyu Feng, Yuemin Yang, Yao Zhu, Qiang |
author_sort | Yu, Hongli |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) and modified RECIST (mRECIST) are commonly used to assess tumour response. Which one is better to evaluate efficacy after molecular targeted therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients is still controversial. A systemic review was performed to compare the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) and a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the correlation between objective response and overall survival (OS). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched through 31 December 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies assessing the efficacy of molecular targeted therapy for HCC according to both RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two investigators extracted data independently. The consistency between RECIST 1.1 vs mRECIST is measured by the k coefficient. HRs with corresponding 95% CIs were used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: 23 studies comprising 2574 patients were included in systematic review. The ORR according to mRECIST is higher than RECIST1.1 (15.9% vs 7.8%, p<0.001). The DCR is similar (68.4% vs 67.2%, p=0.5). The agreement of tumour response is moderate for objective response (k=0.499) and perfect for progressive disease (k=0.901), calculated from 8 studies including 372 patients. OS was significantly longer in response group than non-response group according to mRECIST (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.78, p=0.0004) calculated from 7 studies including 566 patients, however, the RECIST1.1 could not distinguish the OS well (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.05, p=0.08). Subgroup analusis by type of treatment was conducted. CONCLUSIONS: mRECIST may be more accurate than RECIST 1.1 in assessing ORR after molecular targeted therapies in HCC patients and can better assess the prognosis. However, the performance of both criteria in assessing disease progression is identical. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020200895. ETHICS APPROVAL: Ethics approval is not required in this meta-analysis. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9161105 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91611052022-06-16 RECIST 1.1 versus mRECIST for assessment of tumour response to molecular targeted therapies and disease outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis Yu, Hongli Bai, Yuping Xie, Xiaoyu Feng, Yuemin Yang, Yao Zhu, Qiang BMJ Open Oncology OBJECTIVES: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) and modified RECIST (mRECIST) are commonly used to assess tumour response. Which one is better to evaluate efficacy after molecular targeted therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients is still controversial. A systemic review was performed to compare the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) and a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the correlation between objective response and overall survival (OS). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched through 31 December 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies assessing the efficacy of molecular targeted therapy for HCC according to both RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two investigators extracted data independently. The consistency between RECIST 1.1 vs mRECIST is measured by the k coefficient. HRs with corresponding 95% CIs were used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: 23 studies comprising 2574 patients were included in systematic review. The ORR according to mRECIST is higher than RECIST1.1 (15.9% vs 7.8%, p<0.001). The DCR is similar (68.4% vs 67.2%, p=0.5). The agreement of tumour response is moderate for objective response (k=0.499) and perfect for progressive disease (k=0.901), calculated from 8 studies including 372 patients. OS was significantly longer in response group than non-response group according to mRECIST (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.78, p=0.0004) calculated from 7 studies including 566 patients, however, the RECIST1.1 could not distinguish the OS well (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.05, p=0.08). Subgroup analusis by type of treatment was conducted. CONCLUSIONS: mRECIST may be more accurate than RECIST 1.1 in assessing ORR after molecular targeted therapies in HCC patients and can better assess the prognosis. However, the performance of both criteria in assessing disease progression is identical. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020200895. ETHICS APPROVAL: Ethics approval is not required in this meta-analysis. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9161105/ /pubmed/35649603 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052294 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Oncology Yu, Hongli Bai, Yuping Xie, Xiaoyu Feng, Yuemin Yang, Yao Zhu, Qiang RECIST 1.1 versus mRECIST for assessment of tumour response to molecular targeted therapies and disease outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | RECIST 1.1 versus mRECIST for assessment of tumour response to molecular targeted therapies and disease outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | RECIST 1.1 versus mRECIST for assessment of tumour response to molecular targeted therapies and disease outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | RECIST 1.1 versus mRECIST for assessment of tumour response to molecular targeted therapies and disease outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | RECIST 1.1 versus mRECIST for assessment of tumour response to molecular targeted therapies and disease outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | RECIST 1.1 versus mRECIST for assessment of tumour response to molecular targeted therapies and disease outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | recist 1.1 versus mrecist for assessment of tumour response to molecular targeted therapies and disease outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9161105/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35649603 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052294 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yuhongli recist11versusmrecistforassessmentoftumourresponsetomoleculartargetedtherapiesanddiseaseoutcomesinpatientswithhepatocellularcarcinomaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT baiyuping recist11versusmrecistforassessmentoftumourresponsetomoleculartargetedtherapiesanddiseaseoutcomesinpatientswithhepatocellularcarcinomaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT xiexiaoyu recist11versusmrecistforassessmentoftumourresponsetomoleculartargetedtherapiesanddiseaseoutcomesinpatientswithhepatocellularcarcinomaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT fengyuemin recist11versusmrecistforassessmentoftumourresponsetomoleculartargetedtherapiesanddiseaseoutcomesinpatientswithhepatocellularcarcinomaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT yangyao recist11versusmrecistforassessmentoftumourresponsetomoleculartargetedtherapiesanddiseaseoutcomesinpatientswithhepatocellularcarcinomaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT zhuqiang recist11versusmrecistforassessmentoftumourresponsetomoleculartargetedtherapiesanddiseaseoutcomesinpatientswithhepatocellularcarcinomaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |