Cancer Res Treat.  2005 Oct;37(5):290-293.

Comparison of WHO and RECIST Criteria for Response in Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma

• Choi JH
• Ahn MJ
• Rhim HC
• Kim JW
• Lee GH
• Lee YY
• Kim IS

Abstract

PURPOSE
This study compared the WHO criteria with the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) in the same patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in order to determine the significance of the RECIST. In addition, this study compared the estimations of medical oncologists with those of a radiologist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2002 and 2005, a total of 48 patients (male: female ratio, 29: 19; median age, 58 years) with measurable lesions receiving chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal carcinoma were enrolled in this study. Two medical oncologists and one radiologist, who were blinded to the patients' condition, independently reviewed all the CT images. The results were compared using a kappa test. RESULTS: The kappa test for concordance between the WHO and RECIST criteria of the medical oncologists and the radiologist were 0.908 and 0.841, respectively. The level of concordance between the investigators using the WHO and RECIST were 0.722 and 0.753, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The RECIST criteria are comparable to the WHO criteria in evaluating the response of colorectal carcinoma, but have simple and reproducible guidelines. The use of RECIST is recommended for evaluating the treatment efficacy in clinical trials and practice.

Keyword

Tumor response; RECIST; WHO; Metastatic colorectal carcinoma

MeSH Terms

Colorectal Neoplasms*
Drug Therapy
Female
Humans
Research Personnel
Treatment Outcome

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Change in the response between the WHO and RECIST criteria estimated by the medical oncologist (A) and radiologist (B).

Reference

1. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981; 47:207–214. PMID: 7459811.

2. Thiesse P, Ollivier L, Di Stefano-Louineau D, Negrier S, Savary J, Pignard K, et al. Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for interobserver variability. Groupe Francais d'Immunotherapie of the Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1997; 15:3507–3514. PMID: 9396404.

3. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92:205–216. PMID: 10655437.

4. James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M, Terenziani M, Vena D, Muldal A, et al. Unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999; 91:523–528. PMID: 10088622.

5. Trillet-Lenoir V, Freyer G, Kaemmerlen P, Fond A, Pellet O, Lombard-Bohas C, et al. Assessment of tumour response to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: accuracy of the RECIST criteria. Br J Radiol. 2002; 75:903–908. PMID: 12466256.

6. Park JO, Lee SI, Song SY, Kim K, Kim WS, Jung CW, et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: comparison of RECIST and WHO response criteria. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2003; 33:533–537. PMID: 14623923.

7. Prasad SR, Saini S, Sumner JE, Hahn PF, Sahani D, Boland GW. Radiological measurement of breast cancer metastases to lung and liver: comparison between WHO (bidimensional) and RECIST (unidimensional) guidelines. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2003; 27:380–384. PMID: 12794603.

8. Byrne MJ, Nowak AK. Modified RECIST criteria for assessment of response in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Ann Oncol. 2004; 15:257–260. PMID: 14760119.

9. Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, Sabloff BS, Truong MT, Herbst RS, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21:2574–2582. PMID: 12829678.