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 session

1601 - Prospective comparison of RECIST and alternative response assessment criteria in the evaluation of metastatic renal cell cancer patients from phase II of the multi-centre randomised STAR trial

Date

10 Sep 2017

Session

Poster display session

Presenters

Christian Kelly-Morland

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2017) 28 (suppl_5): v295-v329. 10.1093/annonc/mdx371

Authors

C. Kelly-Morland1, J. Zhong2, V. Goh1, T. Wah2, C. Ralph2, F. Thistlethwaite3, P. Patel4, P. Nathan5, T. Eisen6, W. Gregory7, L. McParland7, H. Cool7, K. Royle7, E. Best7, L. Whincup7, F. Collinson7, J. Brown8

Author affiliations

  • 1 Imaging Sciences, 4th Floor Rayne Institute St. Thomas' Hospital, King's College London - KCL, SE1 &EH - London/GB
  • 2 Radiology, St James' hospital, LS( - Leeds/GB
  • 3 Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS foundation trust, M20 4BX - Manchester/GB
  • 4 Medical Oncology, University of Nottingham, NG72RD - Nottingham/GB
  • 5 Department Of Medical Oncology, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, HA6 2RN - Northwood/GB
  • 6 Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust - Addenbrooke's Hospital, CB2 0QQ - Cambridge/GB
  • 7 Institute Of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, LS2 9NL - Leeds/GB
  • 8 Academic Unit Of Clinical Oncology, Weston park hospital, S102SJ - Sheffield/GB
More

Resources

Abstract 1601

Background

Combined size and enhancement criteria show potential to predict earlier disease response or progression in metastatic renal cancer (mRCC). We assessed categorisation differences using RECIST 1.1, Choi and modified Choi (mChoi) criteria with normalised rather than absolute enhancement values in phase II of the STAR trial (comparing conventional continuation versus drug free intervals of tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment in mRCC).

Methods

44 patients underwent contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) at baseline, 12 and 24 weeks post therapy. Automated software was used by 2 independent readers to evaluate 104 target lesions. Target lesion sum of longest diameter, normalised enhancement values (relative to aortic attenuation) and subsequent percentage change at 12 and 24-week CT were measured. Response categorisation into stable disease (SD), partial response (PR) or progressive disease (PD) was undertaken by RECIST 1.1, Choi and mChoi response criteria, and discrepant cases scored. Reader agreement was assessed by Cohen’s kappa test.

Results

By RECIST 1.1, patients were 68%(n = 30)/41% (18)SD, 27%(12)/45%(20) PR, 2%(1)/9%(4) PD and 2%(1)/2%(1) CR at 12 and 24 weeks respectively. At 12 weeks 27 patients had discrepant categorisation: PR by both Choi/mChoi criteria but SD by RECIST in 17 and PR by CHOI, SD by mCHOI in 10. With absolute versus normalised enhancement values, 3 further patients would have remained as SD by mChoi at 12 weeks. At 24 weeks 14 remained discrepant: both Choi/mChoi PR but SD by RECIST in 10, PR by Choi but SD in mCHOI/RECIST in 4 patients. 11 previously discrepant patients by RECIST versus Choi/mChoi became concordant (8 PR, 3 PD) at 24 weeks. The concordance was excellent for RECIST (k 0.9, k 0.8) and mChoi (k 0.9 k 0.79), and good/excellent reader for Choi criteria (k 0.76 k1.0) at 12 and 24 weeks respectively.

Conclusions

Early response, confirmed at 24 weeks, was more frequent for Choi/mChoi than RECIST. Substantial/excellent agreement was noted in response categorisation with normalised versus absolute enhancement indicating this is a potentially robust approach.

Clinical trial identification

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 09/91/21) The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

Legal entity responsible for the study

Leeds institute of clinical trials research

Funding

NHS National Institute for Health Research

Disclosure

F. Thistlethwaite: Previous ESMO travel and accommodation reimbursement by Ipsen and Bristol Meyers Squibb, consultant for Pfizer and Bristol-Meyers Squibb and received research funding from Pfizer, Novartis and Aveo. All other 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
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.