Cuituny-Romero AK, Onofre-Castillo J

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 31-42
PDF size: 702.36 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: The incidence of non-microcytic lung cancer has increased 25% in recent years; with 10% survival at 5 years, we need to evaluate response to treatment using the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST), three-dimensional measurement methods, or both.
Objective: Stage response to treatment with RECIST and compare such measurements with those of the three- dimensional and volume radiological methods.
Material and method: We studied 11 patients with histological diagnosis of pulmonary carcinoma (except small cell carcinoma) in the period January to September 2013.
Results: We observed only one case of concordance between conventional three-dimensional radiological measurements and RECIST criteria; in the rest of the population studied there was a 5 to 43% range of difference between the two measurements.
Discussion: In the patients studied we found: in 5 progression of disease, in 3 stability, in 2 partial response, and in only 1 complete response based on RECIST criteria and the three-dimensional method. This shows that uniform protocol is needed to monitor patients with lung cancer, using evaluation by three-dimensional measurements, RECIST, or both.
Conclusion: Use of RECIST to classify response in all patients with pulmonary tumors should be considered, regardless of histological subtype and stage of disease, to standardize monitoring and evaluation not only of the target lesion or lesions but of all lesions present (metastasis) for optimum control of treatment.

REFERENCES

1. Cervera Deval J. RECIST y el radiólogo. Radiología 2012;59(3):193:205.

2. RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors). http://www.recist.com 12-12-14

3. Munden RF et al. Imaging of the patient with non-small cell lung cáncer. Radiology 2005;237(3):803-18.

4. Nishino M et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumor (RECIST) guidelines for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Comparision with original RECIST and impact on assessment of tumor response to targeted therapy. Am J Roentgenology 2010;195(3):221-8.

5. Pelechano P, Barrios M, Marhuenda A, Martín I, Santos J, Cervera J. Nuevos criterios RECIST (versión 1.1). Manual para radiólogos. Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología. Sociedad Española de Radiología Médica. http:// www.seram2010.com 12-12-14

6. Guía de Práctica clínica para la detección, diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer pulmonar., México: Secretaria de Salud; 2009. www.cenetec.salud.gob.mx/descargas/ gpc/.../IMSS_030_08_EyR.pdf12-12-14

7. Bhure UN et al. Accuracy of CT parameters for assesment of tumor size and agressiveness in lung adenocarcinoma with broncoalveolar elements. Brit J Radiol 2010;83:841- 9.

8. Nishino M et al. Revised RECIST guideline version 1.1: What oncologists want to know and what radiologist need to know. Am J Roentgenolgy 2010;195:281-9.

9. Suzuki M. Radiologic Measurements of tumor response to treatment practical approaches and limitations. Radiographics 2008;28:329-44.

10. Munden RF et al. Imaging of the patient with non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology 2005;237:803-18.

11. Padhani AR et al. The RECIST criteria: implications for diagnostic radiologist. The Brit J Radiol 2001;74:983-6.