Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleHot Topics

RECIP 1.0: A Roadmap for Clinical Implementation

Andrei Gafita, Loic Djaileb, Jeremie Calais, Matthias Eiber and Wolfgang P. Fendler
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2025, 66 (5) 673-675; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.124.268730
Andrei Gafita
1Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Loic Djaileb
2LRB, Nuclear Medicine Department, CHU Grenoble Alpes, INSERM, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeremie Calais
3Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthias Eiber
4Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wolfgang P. Fendler
5Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, German Cancer Consortium, West German Cancer Center, Essen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Objective response evaluation in oncologic disease is a key endpoint of patient outcome. Response assessment has been performed using tumor measurements at the individual lesion level. For example, RECIST 1.1 defines progression on CT images on the basis of a change in lesion diameter or occurrence of new lesions (1), whereas PERCIST 1.0 adapts metabolic measurements to evaluate response using FDG PET imaging (2). In prostate cancer, the Prostate Cancer Working Group criteria define progression as occurrence of at least 2 new lesions for a bone scan and otherwise follow RECIST 1.1 definition for CT images (3). The bone scan index calculated on a bone scan was the first attempt to evolve response evaluation from traditional lesion-level measurements to whole-body tumor burden assessment; however, its standardization and clinical implementation have met with mixed success (4).

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT is a relatively new imaging modality for prostate cancer that has received regulatory approval within the past 4 y. Although its superior diagnostic accuracy compared with conventional imaging has been established, definitive evidence of its role for treatment monitoring of prostate cancer is still being generated. Response criteria for PSMA PET needed to be rationally designed, simple enough for routine use, yet accurate and validated by multicenter clinical evidence.

With this intent, RECIP 1.0 was proposed in 2022 as the first standardized framework to evaluate treatment response in prostate cancer using PSMA-targeted PET/CT imaging (5). RECIP 1.0 introduced the concept of using measurements of total tumor volume and lesions in PSMA PET imaging to monitor therapeutic efficacy in prostate cancer. In a direct comparison with other response frameworks applied to PSMA PET/CT, such as Prostate Cancer Working Group 3, PERCIST, and PSMA PET progression, RECIP achieved the highest interreader reliability and highest prognostic accuracy (6). The RECIP framework incorporates evaluation of 2 parameters: responses in PSMA-positive total tumor volume (PSMA-VOL) and status of the occurrence of new lesions (Table 1). PSMA-VOL was shown to be a relevant spatial biomarker with high prognostic value across the prostate cancer clinical states (7). qPSMA was the first software tool developed to enable whole-body tumor quantification specifically using PSMA PET/CT imaging (8), but several other tumor quantification software have been used to determine RECIP 1.0 (9–13). The original RECIP 1.0 incorporated quantitative changes in PSMA-VOL, and cutoff definition for changes in PSMA-VOL obtained using qPSMA was established (response, ≥30% decrease; progression, ≥20% increase). Among several cutoffs tested, the ones established achieved the highest prognostic value for overall survival in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer and late-stage metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (5,9). Importantly, these cutoff definitions are software agnostic and can be applied to any quantification tool in the future (5). More sophisticated approaches for tumor segmentation using artificial intelligence technologies were developed subsequently for commercial use, but they are not widely available (14). Head-to-head comparison among different quantification software and the impact of their output on calculating RECIP 1.0 is warranted.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1.

RECIP 1.0 Definition

To overcome the limited availability of tumor quantification tools, Gafita et al. (15) investigated whether responses in PSMA-VOL can be determined accurately with visual interpretation by nuclear medicine specialists. Responses in PSMA-VOL were evaluated qualitatively by means of side-by-side comparison of baseline and follow-up maximum-intensity projection (MIP) PET images. Additionally, review of axial images was performed to confirm MIP findings or for lesion-based analysis in borderline cases. The study found an excellent agreement (84%) among 5 readers and almost perfect agreement (94%) between visual assessment by physicians and quantitative assessment by segmentation software of responses in PSMA-VOL. These strikingly positive findings encouraged investigators to add a new component to the RECIP framework: visual evaluation of responses in PSMA-VOL using PSMA PET MIP images to determine RECIP 1.0. Validation of visual RECIP in early-stage prostate cancer in patients with low tumor burden is warranted before its clinical implementation in this setting.

Although standardizing the interpretation of PET MIP images for tumor response evaluation was conceptualized within the RECIP 1.0 framework, visual comparison of MIP PET images is commonly used in daily practice during interpretation of pairs of PET/CT scans in oncology. In fact, comparison of MIP PET images is typically the first assessment nuclear medicine specialists perform at the beginning of interpreting pairs of PET/CT scans. However, the purpose of comparing MIP PET images has been limited to providing an estimation of disease response. Formal response assessment and reporting are performed using traditional individual lesion-level measurements. The comparison of MIP PET images had not been included in formal tumor response assessment primarily because of a lack of standardization and a lack of trust in the method itself due to being traditionally perceived as oversimplified and imprecise. Nevertheless, an international survey found that visual RECIP 1.0 was implemented in PSMA PET/CT clinical reports during PSMA theranostics at 11% of participating institutions (16), highlighting that the nuclear medicine community is slowly adopting this methodology to determine objective response in prostate cancer. Of note, visual RECIP has been validated in advanced prostate cancer only. Evaluation of interreader agreement and prognostic accuracy of visual RECIP in early-stage prostate cancer is required before its clinical implementation in this setting.

However, 2 crucial aspects needed to be addressed to enable clinical implementation of PSMA PET MIP assessment in radiology reports: first to standardize image interpretation and second to provide educational tools to physicians to acquire experience in reading images. Data on visual RECIP 1.0 generated by Gafita et al. (15) were based on image interpretation performed by physicians with significant experience in PSMA PET/CT imaging. To support clinical translation of RECIP 1.0, an online platform for education was developed (http://recip-criteria.com), including comprehensive guidelines for interpreting response in PSMA PET/CT images by RECIP 1.0 (http://recip-criteria.com/guidelines).

The timing of follow-up imaging is also a crucial factor to consider. Although clinical trials typically follow a standardized schedule (every 8 or 12 wk (3)), in clinical practice, the timing of assessments can vary depending on the therapeutic agent and prostate cancer clinical state. In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, interim PSMA PET/CT is typically performed after 2 or 3 cycles of PSMA-targeted therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals, androgen receptor–signaling inhibitors, or 223Ra therapy. In contrast, during taxane-based chemotherapy, only an end-of-treatment scan is typically performed. In early-stage prostate cancer, there are no established imaging time points, and imaging is typically triggered by rising prostate-specific antigen values to confirm and localize disease progression.

Several unmet needs are to be addressed to ensure successful clinical implementation of RECIP 1.0. First, education of physicians on PSMA PET MIP methodology is a crucial step toward implementation of visual RECIP 1.0 in practice on a large scale. Second, RECIP has been validated for response evaluation during PSMA theranostics (11,12,17), hormonal therapy (androgen deprivation therapy or androgen receptor–signaling inhibitors) (13,18,19), and 223Ra therapy (10). Validation of these findings in larger patient multicentric cohorts as well as evaluation of the RECIP role in monitoring the efficacy of taxane-based chemotherapy is warranted. Third, the role of cross-sectional imaging (contrast-enhanced CT or MRI) in conjunction with PSMA PET imaging has not been addressed. Of particular interest is the prognostic role of new PSMA-negative lesions (e.g., in the liver) or new organ involvement (20), which may carry a different prognostic significance. An international multicentric effort investigating this topic is ongoing. Nevertheless, the current RECIP 1.0 definition classifies new lesions on CT or MRI as a new lesion independent of PSMA expression status. Fourth, implementation of RECIP 1.0 in clinical trials in which serial PSMA PET/CT scans are being performed is imperative to determine its prognostic value as a time-to-event endpoint. When PSMA PET/CT is performed at multiple time points (e.g., every 8 or 12 wk), the most recent follow-up scan should be compared with the previous scan. No flare phenomenon has been reported with PSMA PET/CT; therefore, progression can be documented on the first follow-up scan. Lastly, given the considerable clinical value of PSMA-VOL, accurate software solutions for tumor quantification are urgently needed, and open-source software may be an option for rapid dissemination.

DISCLOSURE

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Footnotes

  • Published online Mar. 27, 2025.

  • © 2025 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Eisenhauer EA,
    2. Therasse P,
    3. Bogaerts J,
    4. et al
    . New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–247.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Wahl RL,
    2. Jacene H,
    3. Kasamon Y,
    4. Lodge MA
    . From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl 1):122S–150S.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Scher HI,
    2. Morris MJ,
    3. Stadler WM,
    4. et al
    .; Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3. Trial design and objectives for castration-resistant prostate cancer: updated recommendations from the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1402–1418.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Dennis ER,
    2. Jia X,
    3. Mezheritskiy IS,
    4. et al
    . Bone scan index: a quantitative treatment response biomarker for castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:519–524.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Gafita A,
    2. Rauscher I,
    3. Weber M,
    4. et al
    . Novel framework for treatment response evaluation using PSMA PET/CT in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (RECIP 1.0): an international multicenter study. J Nucl Med. 2022;63:1651–1658.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Gafita A,
    2. Rauscher I,
    3. Fendler WP,
    4. et al
    . Measuring response in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer using PSMA PET/CT: comparison of RECIST 1.1, aPCWG3, aPERCIST, PPP, and RECIP 1.0 criteria. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49:4271–4281.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Karpinski MJ,
    2. Hüsing J,
    3. Claassen K,
    4. et al
    . Combining PSMA-PET and PROMISE to re-define disease stage and risk in patients with prostate cancer: a multicentre retrospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2024;25:1188–1201.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Gafita A,
    2. Bieth M,
    3. Krönke M,
    4. et al
    . qPSMA: semiautomatic software for whole-body tumor burden assessment in prostate cancer using 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:1277–1283.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Kendrick J,
    2. Francis RJ,
    3. Hassan GM,
    4. et al
    . Prognostic utility of RECIP 1.0 with manual and AI-based segmentations in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer from [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET images. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50:4077–4086.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Shagera QA,
    2. Gil T,
    3. Barraco E,
    4. et al
    . Evaluating response to radium-223 using 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2025;39:208–216.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Hartrampf PE,
    2. Hüttmann T,
    3. Seitz AK,
    4. et al
    . Prognostic performance of RECIP 1.0 based on [18F]PSMA-1007 PET in prostate cancer patients treated with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA I&T. J Nucl Med. 2024;65:560–565.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Kind F,
    2. Eder AC,
    3. Jilg CA,
    4. et al
    . Prognostic value of tumor volume assessment on PSMA PET after 177Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy evaluated by PSMA PET/CT consensus statement and RECIP 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2023;64:605–610.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Benitez CM,
    2. Sahlstedt H,
    3. Sonni I,
    4. et al
    . Treatment response assessment according to updated PROMISE criteria in patients with metastatic prostate cancer using an automated imaging platform for identification, measurement, and temporal tracking of disease. Eur Urol Oncol. 2024, in press.
  14. 14.↵
    1. Nickols N,
    2. Anand A,
    3. Johnsson K,
    4. et al
    . aPROMISE: a novel automated PROMISE platform to standardize evaluation of tumor burden in 18F-DCFPyL images of veterans with prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2022;63:233–239.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Gafita A,
    2. Djaileb L,
    3. Rauscher I,
    4. et al
    . Response evaluation criteria in PSMA PET/CT (RECIP 1.0) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Radiology. 2023;308:e222148.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Farolfi A,
    2. Armstrong WR,
    3. Djaileb L,
    4. et al
    . Differences and common ground in 177Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy practice patterns: international survey of 95 theranostic centers. J Nucl Med. 2024;65:438–445.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Murthy V,
    2. Gafita A,
    3. Thin P,
    4. et al
    . Prognostic value of end-of-treatment PSMA PET/CT in patients treated with 177Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy: a retrospective, single-center analysis. J Nucl Med. 2023;64:1737–1743.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Qaid Ahmed S,
    2. Ioannis K,
    3. Paulus K,
    4. et al
    . PSMA PET/CT for response assessment and overall survival prediction in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors. J Nucl Med. 2023;64:1869–1875.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Murthy V,
    2. Appiah-Kubi E,
    3. Nguyen K,
    4. et al
    . Associations of quantitative whole-body PSMA-PET metrics with PSA progression status under long-term androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer patients: a retrospective single-center study. Eur J Hybrid Imaging. 2023;7:18.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Kaplan İ,
    2. Kömek H,
    3. Can C,
    4. et al
    . Should new organ involvement be included in response evaluation criteria in PSMA imaging? Ann Nucl Med. 2024;38:825–834.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  • Received for publication September 5, 2024.
  • Accepted for publication March 3, 2025.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 66 (5)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 66, Issue 5
May 1, 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
RECIP 1.0: A Roadmap for Clinical Implementation
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
RECIP 1.0: A Roadmap for Clinical Implementation
Andrei Gafita, Loic Djaileb, Jeremie Calais, Matthias Eiber, Wolfgang P. Fendler
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2025, 66 (5) 673-675; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.124.268730

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
RECIP 1.0: A Roadmap for Clinical Implementation
Andrei Gafita, Loic Djaileb, Jeremie Calais, Matthias Eiber, Wolfgang P. Fendler
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2025, 66 (5) 673-675; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.124.268730
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Diagnostic Radiopharmaceutical Trial Design: Is It Time to Change Nomenclature?
  • From Stabilization to Depletion: Molecular Imaging to Measure Therapeutic Response in ATTR-CA
Show more Hot Topics

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire