» Articles » PMID: 24338498

Recommendations for the Clinical and Radiological Evaluation of Response to Treatment in Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer

Overview
Journal Target Oncol
Specialty Oncology
Date 2013 Dec 17
PMID 24338498
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The evaluation of response to treatment is a critical step for determining the effectiveness of oncology drugs. Targeted therapies such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors are active drugs in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, treatment with this type of drugs may not result in significant reductions in tumor size, so standard evaluation criteria based on tumor size, such as Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), may be inappropriate for evaluating response to treatment in patients with mRCC. In fact, targeted therapies apparently yield low response rates that do not reflect increased disease control they may cause and, consequently, the benefit in terms of time to progression. To improve the clinical and radiological evaluation of response to treatment in patients with mRCC treated with targeted drugs, a group of 32 experts in this field have reviewed different aspects related to this issue and have put together a series of recommendations with the intention of providing guidance to clinicians on this matter.

Citing Articles

Liver metastasis and Heng risk are prognostic factors in patients with non-nephrectomized synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with systemic therapy.

Kim S, Kim J, Park E, Joo J, Lee K, Seo H PLoS One. 2019; 14(2):e0211105.

PMID: 30785902 PMC: 6382149. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211105.


Initial computed tomography imaging details during first-line systemic therapy is of significant prognostic value in patients with naïve, unresectable metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Kim S, Park W, Kim S, Seo H, Joung J, Lee K PLoS One. 2017; 12(5):e0177975.

PMID: 28562690 PMC: 5451027. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177975.


A retrospective study of predictive factors for unexpectedly prolonged or shortened progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received first-line targeted therapy.

Kim S, Kim S, Joo J, Seo H, Joung J, Lee K BMC Cancer. 2016; 16:577.

PMID: 27484254 PMC: 4969738. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2615-4.


SEOM clinical guidelines for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma.

Bellmunt J, Puente J, Garcia de Muro J, Lainez N, Rodriguez C, Duran I Clin Transl Oncol. 2014; 16(12):1043-50.

PMID: 25274276 PMC: 4239764. DOI: 10.1007/s12094-014-1219-1.


Translation in solid cancer: are size-based response criteria an anachronism?.

Fernandes M, Rosel D, Brabek J Clin Transl Oncol. 2014; 17(1):1-10.

PMID: 25073600 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-014-1207-5.

References
1.
Lamuraglia M, Escudier B, Chami L, Schwartz B, Leclere J, Roche A . To predict progression-free survival and overall survival in metastatic renal cancer treated with sorafenib: pilot study using dynamic contrast-enhanced Doppler ultrasound. Eur J Cancer. 2006; 42(15):2472-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.04.023. View

2.
Fournier L, Oudard S, Thiam R, Trinquart L, Banu E, Medioni J . Metastatic renal carcinoma: evaluation of antiangiogenic therapy with dynamic contrast-enhanced CT. Radiology. 2010; 256(2):511-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10091362. View

3.
Manola J, Royston P, Elson P, McCormack J, Mazumdar M, Negrier S . Prognostic model for survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from the international kidney cancer working group. Clin Cancer Res. 2011; 17(16):5443-50. PMC: 3387987. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0553. View

4.
Figueiras R, Padhani A, Goh V, Vilanova J, Gonzalez S, Villalba Martin C . Novel oncologic drugs: what they do and how they affect images. Radiographics. 2011; 31(7):2059-91. DOI: 10.1148/rg.317115108. View

5.
Goh V, Ng Q, Miles K . Computed tomography perfusion imaging for therapeutic assessment: has it come of age as a biomarker in oncology?. Invest Radiol. 2011; 47(1):2-4. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e318229ff3e. View