Abstract 168P
Background
In 2010 mRECIST was published in Seminars of Liver Disease for the evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) response assessment. It proposed a modification of existing RECIST 1.1 incorporating visible changes and reduction in the arterial enhancement of the HCC tissue and the concept of measuring viable versus not measuring necrotic tissue, better evaluating treatment responses in HCC with CT or MRI.
Methods
Multiple phase III clinical trials were analyzed using both mRECIST and RECIST 1.1 in parallel, which were read separately by blinded independent central read (BICR). The purpose was to compare the overall response rates and complete response rates by the two criteria. 2601 subjects with 13675 post-baseline imaging timepoints were included in this comparison. The Overall Response Rate (ORR) and the Complete Response Rate (CRR) are derived.
Results
Table: 168P
Overall response in 2601 subjects with 13675 time points excluding baseline
mRECIST | RECIST 1.1 | |
CR | 448 | 235 |
PR | 2846 | 2272 |
SD/NN (Stable Disease/Non-CR Non-PD) | 4616 | 5523 |
PD (Progressive Disease) | 5525 | 5449 |
NE | 224 | 180 |
ORR | 24.10% | 18.31% |
CRR | 3.3% | 1.7% |
Conclusions
Our results indicate that: 1.) mRECIST has better ORR and CRR compared to RECIST 1.1. 2.) RECIST 1.1 has more timepoints with Stable Disease SD/NN compared to mRECIST. 3.) mRECIST has more Not Evaluable (NE) timepoints due to more stringent imaging specifications. mRECIST shows almost double the CRR than RECIST 1.1, and the ORR is 33% higher using mRECIST than RECIST 1.1. Stable Disease was observed about 20% more in the RECIST 1.1 analysis, which includes the Non-CR/Non-PD assessment of patients with only non measurable disease for non-target lesions. A reasonable explanation for such a 20% SD discordance being higher with RECIST 1.1 is primarily reflected in the higher number of documented responders assessed with mRECIST. A Non Evaluable (NE) response is more common with mRECIST. Our analysis confirms that mRECIST is more robust in assessing responding patients with CRR and ORR in HCC as it based on measuring the viable tumor component instead of plain linear RECIST 1.1 measurements of its total tumor diameter only.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
104P - Safety and efficacy of HLX04 versus reference bevacizumab in combination with XELOX or mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: A randomised, double-blind phase III study
Presenter: Shukui Qin
Session: e-Poster Display Session
105P - Prospective, open-label, observational study of cetuximab for metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC): The OPTIM1SE study
Presenter: Tsai-Sheng Yang
Session: e-Poster Display Session
106P - Efficacy and tolerability of capecitabine and mitomycin-C based concurrent radiotherapy in patients with anal canal cancer
Presenter: Prabhat Bhargava
Session: e-Poster Display Session
107P - Safety and efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Results from the Australian cohort of the phase IIIb, international, open-label, early-access PRECONNECT study
Presenter: Timothy Price
Session: e-Poster Display Session
108P - Comparative analysis of two-stage hepatectomy and enhanced one-stage hepatectomy in the setting of bilobar colorectal liver metastases
Presenter: Hayk Torgomyan
Session: e-Poster Display Session
109P - Efficacy and safety of biweekly or triweekly XELOX regimen for adjuvant chemotherapy of colorectal cancer
Presenter: hangyu zhang
Session: e-Poster Display Session
110P - Analysis for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) effect for colorectal liver metastases
Presenter: Wei Zou
Session: e-Poster Display Session
111P - A meta-analysis study on safety and effectiveness comparison between FOLFOX and XELOX regiments on advanced stage colorectal cancer
Presenter: Ida Bagus Budhi
Session: e-Poster Display Session
112P - Pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy in patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: Asia subgroup results of the phase III KEYNOTE-177 study
Presenter: Takayuki Yoshino
Session: e-Poster Display Session
122P - Nomogram to predict short-term effect of radiotherapy based on pre/post-treatment inflammatory biomarkers and their dynamic changes in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Presenter: Shuai Liang
Session: e-Poster Display Session