实体瘤的改良反应评估标准:贝伐单抗治疗后非鳞状非小细胞肺癌癌症患者的更好反应评估标准。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Yubao Huang, Yunkai Yang, Aidong Qu, Sixiu Li, Dandan Chen, Hongxia Zou, Songsong Li, Yaowen Zhang, Wei Zhuang, Jing Su, Xu Zhou, Yuntao Zhang
{"title":"实体瘤的改良反应评估标准:贝伐单抗治疗后非鳞状非小细胞肺癌癌症患者的更好反应评估标准。","authors":"Yubao Huang,&nbsp;Yunkai Yang,&nbsp;Aidong Qu,&nbsp;Sixiu Li,&nbsp;Dandan Chen,&nbsp;Hongxia Zou,&nbsp;Songsong Li,&nbsp;Yaowen Zhang,&nbsp;Wei Zhuang,&nbsp;Jing Su,&nbsp;Xu Zhou,&nbsp;Yuntao Zhang","doi":"10.1111/ajco.14014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>Cavitation of lesions is common in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (non-squamous-NSCLC) patients treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFRIs). However, traditional response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) do not take cavitation into consideration and may no longer be accurate for potentially reflecting the real clinical efficacy of anti-vessel growth therapy. Here, we aimed to optimize the traditional RECIST version 1.1 by adding cavitation into the evaluation criteria.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We performed a post-hoc radiologic review of 517 patients in a phase III clinical trial of bevacizumab biosimilar (SIBP04) combined with chemotherapy for the treatment of non-squamous NSCLC. Tumor responses were assessed by RECIST1.1 and mRECIST criteria (modified RECIST, a novel alternate method where the longest diameter of the cavity was subtracted from the overall longest diameter of that lesion to measure target lesions), respectively, and correlated with clinical outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Cavitations of pulmonary lesions were seen in nine (2%) patients at baseline, and 97 (19%) during treatment. The use of mRECIST resulted in an alteration of the response category. For patients with post-therapy cavitation, the objective response rate was 56% using RECIST1.1 and 67% by mRECIST. In addition, the survival rates between partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease when the mRECIST was applied were significantly different (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05), while RECIST1.1 failed to show survival differences (<i>p</i> = 0.218).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>For patients with post-therapy cavitation, mRECIST exhibited higher predictability of survival than RECIST1.1. Response assessment might be improved by incorporating cavitation into assessment, potentially altering outcomes of key clinical efficacy parameters.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":8633,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: A better response evaluation criteria for patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer after bevacizumab treatment\",\"authors\":\"Yubao Huang,&nbsp;Yunkai Yang,&nbsp;Aidong Qu,&nbsp;Sixiu Li,&nbsp;Dandan Chen,&nbsp;Hongxia Zou,&nbsp;Songsong Li,&nbsp;Yaowen Zhang,&nbsp;Wei Zhuang,&nbsp;Jing Su,&nbsp;Xu Zhou,&nbsp;Yuntao Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajco.14014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>Cavitation of lesions is common in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (non-squamous-NSCLC) patients treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFRIs). However, traditional response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) do not take cavitation into consideration and may no longer be accurate for potentially reflecting the real clinical efficacy of anti-vessel growth therapy. Here, we aimed to optimize the traditional RECIST version 1.1 by adding cavitation into the evaluation criteria.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We performed a post-hoc radiologic review of 517 patients in a phase III clinical trial of bevacizumab biosimilar (SIBP04) combined with chemotherapy for the treatment of non-squamous NSCLC. Tumor responses were assessed by RECIST1.1 and mRECIST criteria (modified RECIST, a novel alternate method where the longest diameter of the cavity was subtracted from the overall longest diameter of that lesion to measure target lesions), respectively, and correlated with clinical outcomes.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Cavitations of pulmonary lesions were seen in nine (2%) patients at baseline, and 97 (19%) during treatment. The use of mRECIST resulted in an alteration of the response category. For patients with post-therapy cavitation, the objective response rate was 56% using RECIST1.1 and 67% by mRECIST. In addition, the survival rates between partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease when the mRECIST was applied were significantly different (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05), while RECIST1.1 failed to show survival differences (<i>p</i> = 0.218).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>For patients with post-therapy cavitation, mRECIST exhibited higher predictability of survival than RECIST1.1. Response assessment might be improved by incorporating cavitation into assessment, potentially altering outcomes of key clinical efficacy parameters.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8633,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajco.14014\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajco.14014","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:血管内皮生长因子受体酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(VEGFRI)治疗的非鳞状非小细胞肺癌非鳞状-NSCLC)患者中,病灶空洞化是常见的。然而,传统的实体瘤反应评估标准(RECIST)没有考虑空化,可能不再准确地反映抗血管生长疗法的真实临床疗效。在这里,我们旨在通过在评估标准中添加空化来优化传统的RECIST 1.1版本。方法:在贝伐单抗生物类似物(SIBP04)联合化疗治疗非鳞状NSCLC的III期临床试验中,我们对517名患者进行了一项事后放射学审查。肿瘤反应分别通过RECIST1.1和mRECIST标准(改良的RECIST,一种新的替代方法,从病变的总最长直径中减去空腔的最长直径,以测量目标病变)进行评估,并与临床结果相关。结果:基线时有9例(2%)患者出现肺部空洞,治疗期间有97例(19%)患者出现。mRECIST的使用导致了响应类别的更改。对于治疗后出现气穴的患者,RECIST1.1的客观有效率为56%,mRECIST的客观有率为67%。此外,当应用mRECIST时,部分缓解、稳定疾病和进行性疾病的生存率存在显著差异(p结论:对于治疗后出现气穴的患者,mRECIST表现出比RECIST1.1更高的生存可预测性。反应评估可以通过将空化纳入评估来改进,这可能会改变关键临床疗效参数的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: A better response evaluation criteria for patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer after bevacizumab treatment

Modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: A better response evaluation criteria for patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer after bevacizumab treatment

Modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: A better response evaluation criteria for patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer after bevacizumab treatment

Aim

Cavitation of lesions is common in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (non-squamous-NSCLC) patients treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFRIs). However, traditional response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) do not take cavitation into consideration and may no longer be accurate for potentially reflecting the real clinical efficacy of anti-vessel growth therapy. Here, we aimed to optimize the traditional RECIST version 1.1 by adding cavitation into the evaluation criteria.

Methods

We performed a post-hoc radiologic review of 517 patients in a phase III clinical trial of bevacizumab biosimilar (SIBP04) combined with chemotherapy for the treatment of non-squamous NSCLC. Tumor responses were assessed by RECIST1.1 and mRECIST criteria (modified RECIST, a novel alternate method where the longest diameter of the cavity was subtracted from the overall longest diameter of that lesion to measure target lesions), respectively, and correlated with clinical outcomes.

Results

Cavitations of pulmonary lesions were seen in nine (2%) patients at baseline, and 97 (19%) during treatment. The use of mRECIST resulted in an alteration of the response category. For patients with post-therapy cavitation, the objective response rate was 56% using RECIST1.1 and 67% by mRECIST. In addition, the survival rates between partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease when the mRECIST was applied were significantly different (p < 0.05), while RECIST1.1 failed to show survival differences (p = 0.218).

Conclusion

For patients with post-therapy cavitation, mRECIST exhibited higher predictability of survival than RECIST1.1. Response assessment might be improved by incorporating cavitation into assessment, potentially altering outcomes of key clinical efficacy parameters.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Asia–Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal of oncology that aims to be a forum for facilitating collaboration and exchanging information on what is happening in different countries of the Asia–Pacific region in relation to cancer treatment and care. The Journal is ideally positioned to receive publications that deal with diversity in cancer behavior, management and outcome related to ethnic, cultural, economic and other differences between populations. In addition to original articles, the Journal publishes reviews, editorials, letters to the Editor and short communications. Case reports are generally not considered for publication, only exceptional papers in which Editors find extraordinary oncological value may be considered for review. The Journal encourages clinical studies, particularly prospectively designed clinical trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信