Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Non-Size-Based Response Criteria to Preoperative Chemotherapy in Patients With Colorectal Liver Metastases: The Morphologic Response Criteria

  • Colorectal Cancer Hepatic Metastases (KK Tanabe, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports

Abstract

Since the introduction of biological agents, accumulating results have suggested that conventional size-based RECIST criteria do not enable accurate assessment of response to therapy, and that non-size-based changes in tumor morphology can be a surrogate marker for assessment of chemotherapeutic effect. The morphological response criteria are recently introduced, non-size-based criteria for patients undergoing chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases (CLM). These novel criteria predict pathologic response and long-term survival of patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, irrespective of their RECIST response. They have been validated in patients with resectable and unresectable CLM. These criteria are difficult to apply for small metastases and can be used as an adjunct to RECIST in assessment of response to preoperative chemotherapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jaffe CC. Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3245–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Antoch G, Kanja J, Bauer S, et al. Comparison of PET, CT, and dual-modality PET/CT imaging for monitoring of imatinib (STI571) therapy in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:357–65.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, de Castro Faria S, et al. CT evaluation of the response of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after imatinib mesylate treatment: a quantitative analysis correlated with FDG PET findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:1619–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stroobants S, Goeminne J, Seegers M, et al. 18FDG-Positron emission tomography for the early prediction of response in advanced soft tissue sarcoma treated with imatinib mesylate (Glivec). Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:2012–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Thiam R, Fournier LS, Trinquart L, et al. Optimizing the size variation threshold for the CT evaluation of response in metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:936–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, et al. Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1753–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Smith AD, Lieber ML, Shah SN. Assessing tumor response and detecting recurrence in metastatic renal cell carcinoma on targeted therapy: importance of size and attenuation on contrast-enhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:157–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith AD, Shah SN, Rini BI, et al. Morphology, attenuation, size, and structure (MASS) criteria: assessing response and predicting clinical outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma on antiangiogenic targeted therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1470–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. •• Chun YS, Vauthey JN, Boonsirikamchai P, et al. Association of computed tomography morphologic criteria with pathologic response and survival in patients treated with bevacizumab for colorectal liver metastases. JAMA. 2009;302:2338–44. This paper and Ref. [18] first indicated the clinical relevance and predictive value of morphologic response criteria for patients undergoing chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases. These studies showed that optimal morphologic response is associated with better survival, irrespective of the chemotherapy regimens or surgical treatment used.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. De Roock W, Piessevaux H, De Schutter J, et al. KRAS wild-type state predicts survival and is associated to early radiological response in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:508–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. • Suzuki C, Blomqvist L, Sundin A, et al. The initial change in tumor size predicts response and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with combination chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:948–54. This paper reported the limitation of the current version of RECIST in predicting patient outcomes after modern chemotherapy and also indicated the possibility of improving the diagnostic value of RECIST by modifying current cut-off values.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Glimelius B, Sorbye H, Balteskard L, et al. A randomized phase III multicenter trial comparing irinotecan in combination with the Nordic bolus 5-FU and folinic acid schedule or the bolus/infused de Gramont schedule (Lv5FU2) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:909–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Blazer 3rd DG, Kishi Y, Maru DM, et al. Pathologic response to preoperative chemotherapy: a new outcome end point after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5344–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Maru DM, Kopetz S, Boonsirikamchai P, et al. Tumor thickness at the tumor-normal interface: a novel pathologic indicator of chemotherapy response in hepatic colorectal metastases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:1287–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rubbia-Brandt L, Giostra E, Brezault C, et al. Importance of histological tumor response assessment in predicting the outcome in patients with colorectal liver metastases treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by liver surgery. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:299–304.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. •• Shindoh J, Loyer EM, Kopetz S, et al. Optimal morphologic response to preoperative chemotherapy: an alternate outcome end point before resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4566–72. This paper and Ref. [11] first indicated the clinical relevance and predictive value of morphologic response criteria for patients undergoing chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases. These studies showed that optimal morphologic response is associated with better survival, irrespective of the chemotherapy regimens or surgical treatment used.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health through M.D. Anderson’s Cancer Center Support Grant, CA016672.

Conflict of Interest

Junichi Shindoh declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Yun Shin Chun declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Evelyne M. Loyer has received compensation from Roche for lectures including service on speakers bureaus.

Jean-Nicolas Vauthey is supported by a fellowship grant from Roche, and he has also received compensation from Roche for lectures including service on speakers bureaus.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Junichi Shindoh & Jean-Nicolas Vauthey

  2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19111, USA

    Yun Shin Chun

  3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1473, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Evelyne M. Loyer

Authors
  1. Junichi Shindoh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yun Shin Chun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Evelyne M. Loyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jean-Nicolas Vauthey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Nicolas Vauthey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shindoh, J., Chun, Y.S., Loyer, E.M. et al. Non-Size-Based Response Criteria to Preoperative Chemotherapy in Patients With Colorectal Liver Metastases: The Morphologic Response Criteria. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 9, 198–202 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-013-0164-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-013-0164-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation