Comparison of EORTC Criteria and PERCIST for PET/CT Response Evaluation of Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated with Irinotecan and Cetuximab

Article Figures & Data

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1.
Patient flow diagram of RECIST evaluation interobserver study (39).
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2.
OS according to response groups.

TABLE 1

Characteristics of the 61 Evaluated Patients

Characteristic	Value
Age (y)
Median	62
Range	36–82
Sex (n)
Female	24
Male	37
Weight (kg)
Median	77
Range	49–118
Disease-involved organ systems (n)
Median	2
Range	1–4
KRAS status
Wild-type	42 (69%)
Mutated	18 (30%)
Undefined	1 (∼1%)
Treatments per patient (n)
Median	8
Range	4–28
Scans (n)
Total	230
Median	3
Range	2–8
Scanner (no. of patients)
Gemini Dual Slice	56
Philips TruFlight 16 Slice	5

TABLE 3

Reasons for Disagreement on BOmR

No. of patients	BOmR EORTC	BOmR PERCIST	Reason for disagreement
2	SMD	PMD	Reduction in single-lesion SULpeak was greater than reduction in summed SUVmax, body surface area, for multiple lesions
4	PMR	SMD	Reduction in single-lesion SULpeak was less than reduction in summed SUVmax, body surface area, for multiple lesions
2	PMR	SMD	Decrease in SULpeak and in summed SUVmax, body surface area, was between 25% and 30%, resulting in PMR according to EORTC and in SMD according to PERCIST