Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display

615 - Comparison of the EORTC criteria and PERCIST in solid tumors


10 Oct 2016


Poster display


Jung Han Kim


Annals of Oncology (2016) 27 (6): 100-102. 10.1093/annonc/mdw366


J.H. Kim1, S.H. Park2, S.N. Yoon3

Author affiliations

  • 1 Hemato-oncology, Kangnam Sacred-Heart Hospital, 07441 - Seoul/KR
  • 2 Gynecology, Kangnam Sacred-Heart Hospital, 07441 - Seoul/KR
  • 3 Surgery, Kangnam Sacred-Heart Hospital, Seoul/KR


Abstract 615


There are two sets of criteria using PET to monitor metabolic changes to anti-cancer treatment: the criteria developed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC criteria) and the PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST). We conducted this pooled study to investigate the strength of agreement between the EORTC criteria and PERCIST in the assessment of tumor response.


We searched for all relevant studies written in English through the following searching strategy. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, PUBMED, and EMBASE from 2009 when the PERCIST criteria were proposed to January 2016 was carried out to find articles including the following terms in their title, abstract, or key words; ‘tumor response’, ‘EORTC criteria’, or ‘PERCIST.’ We used the ‘related articles’ feature of the PUBMED to identify the related articles. Articles were considered for inclusion in this pooled study if they compared tumor responses by the EORTC criteria and PERCIST.


There were six articles with the data on the comparison of the EORTC criteria and PERCIST. A total of 348 patients were collected; 190 (54.6%) with breast cancer, 81 with colorectal cancer, 45 with lung cancer, 14 with basal cell carcinoma in the skin, 12 with stomach cancer, and 6 with head and neck cancer. The agreement of tumor response between the EORTC criteria and PERCIST was excellent (k = 0.946). Of 348 patients, only 12 (3.4%) showed disagreement between two criteria in the assessment of tumor response. The shift of tumor response between two criteria occurred mostly in patients with PMR and SMD. The estimated overall response rates were not significantly different between two criteria (72.7% byEORTC vs. 73.6% by PERCIST).


In conclusion, this pooled study demonstrates that the EORTC criteria and PERCIST showed almost perfect concordance in the assessment of tumor response in patients with solid tumors. However, it is still necessary to investigate potential differences between the two criteria in studies with larger homogeneous patients' cohort to elucidate if the criteria can be used interchangeably in clinical practice.

Clinical trial identification


Legal entity responsible for the study



Hallym Medical Center


All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings