Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Opinion
  • Published:

Measuring response in a post-RECIST world: from black and white to shades of grey

Abstract

The unprecedented pace of therapeutic development in oncology has created a climate in which the traditional methods of evaluating agent activity might no longer be adequate. How is the field transitioning to new endpoints in early drug development and what are the difficulties in this transition? Here, we will explore the historical context for the current criteria for tumour response evaluation and some of the pitfalls in using these standards when testing newer anticancer agents for activity. We will argue that the current drug development environment dictates different outcome measurements and therefore more imaginative and rigorous early-phase trial designs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Excerpts from the 1979 World Health Organization offset publication no.48.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gilman, A. The initial clinical trial of nitrogen mustard. Am. J. Surg. 105, 574–578 (1963).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Farber, S., Diamond, L. K., Mercer, R. S. & Wolff, J. A. Temporary remission in acute Leukemia in children produced by folic acid antagonist, 4-Aminopteroyl-Glutamic Acid (Aminopterin). N. Engl. J. Med. 238, 787–793 (1948).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bisel, H. F. Letter to the editor. Blood 11, 676 (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Zubrod, C. G. et al. Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: Comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and triethylene thiophosphoramide. J. Chronic Disease Dis. 11, 7–33 (1960).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. World Health Organization. WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment Offset Publication No. 48. (WHO press, Geneva, 1979).

  6. Gurland, J. & Johnson, R. O. How reliable are tumor measurements? JAMA 194, 973–978 (1965).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Moertel, C. G. & Hanley, J. A. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer 38, 388–394 (1976).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lavin, P. T. & Flowerdew, G. Studies in variation associated with the measurement of solid tumors. Cancer 46, 1286–1290 (1980).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lavin, P. T. An alternative model for the evaluation of antitumor activity. Cancer Clin. Trials 4, 451–457 (1981).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Miller, A. B. et al. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47, 207–214 (1981).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tannock, I. & Murphy, K. Reflections on medical oncology: an appeal for better clinical trials and improved reporting of their results. J. Clin. Oncol. 1, 66–70 (1983).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Green, S. & Weiss, S. R. Southwest Oncology Group standard response criteria, endpoint definitions and toxicity criteria. Invest. New Drugs 10, 239–253 (1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. James, K. et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 91, 523–528 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Therasse, P. 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. 92, 205–216 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Therasse, P., European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Data Center. Evaluation of response: new and standard criteria. Ann. Oncol. 13 (Suppl 4), 127–129 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ratain, M. J., Mick R., Schilsky R. L & Siegler, M. Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 85, 1637–1643 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Von Hoff, D. D. There are no bad anticancer agents, only bad clinical trial designs — twenty-first Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Foundation Award Lecture. Clin. Cancer Res. 4, 1079–1086 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Therasse, P. et al. New guidelines to evaluate the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 85, 205–216 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Parulekar, W. R. & Eisenhauer, E. A. Novel endpoints and design of early clinical trials. Ann. Oncol. 13 (Suppl. 4), 139–143 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schilsky, R. L. End points in cancer clinical trials and the drug approval process. Clin. Cancer Res. 8, 935–938 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ratain, M. J. & Eckhardt, S. J. Phase II studies of modern drugs directed against new targets: if you are fazed, too, then resist RECIST. J. Clin. Oncol. 22, 4442–4445 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wilhelm S. & Chien D. S. Bay 43–9006: Preclinical Data. Curr. Pharm. Des. 8, 2255–2257 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Strumberg, D. et al. Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of the Novel Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor BAY 43–9006 in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 965–972 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Rosner, G. L., Stadler, W. & Ratain, M. J. Randomized discontinuation design: application to cytostatic antineoplastic agents. J. Clin. Oncol. 20, 4478–4484 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ratain M. J. et al. A phase II, placebo-controlled, randomized discontinuation trial of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. (in the press).

  26. Ratain, M. J. Phase II oncology trials: let's be positive. Clin. Cancer Res. 11, 5661–5662 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Escudier, B. et al. Randomized phase III trial of the Raf kinase and VEGFR inhibitor sorafenib (BAY 43–9006) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 381s (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yang, J. C. et al. A randomized trial of bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody, for metastatic renal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 427–434 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. George, S. L. Selection bias, phase II trials, and the FDA accelerated approval process. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 95, 1351–1352 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Roberts, T. G., Lynch, T. J. & Chabner, B. A. The phase III trial in the era of targeted therapy: unraveling the 'go or no go' decision. J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 3683–3695 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Stadler, W. New trial designs to assess antitumor and antiproliferative agents in prostate cancer. Invest. New Drugs 20, 201–208 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Gandara D. R. & Gumerlock, P. H. Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors plus chemotherapy: Case closed or is the jury still out? J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 5856–5858 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zia, M. I. et al. Comparison of outcomes of phase II studies and subsequent randomized control studies using identical chemotherapeutic regimens. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 6982–6991 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Parulekar, W. R. & Eisenhauer E. A. Novel endpoints and design of early clinical trials. Ann. Oncol. 13 (Suppl. 4), 139–143 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schilsky, R. L., End points in cancer clinical trials and the drug approval process. Clin. Cancer Res. 8, 935–938 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mack, G. S. Genta sued over NDA withdrawal. Nature Biotechnol. 22, 788–789 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Rubinstein, L. V. et al. Design issues of randomized phase II trials and a proposal for phase II screening trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 7199–7206 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Stadler, W. New trial designs to assess antitumor and antiproliferative agents in prostate cancer. Invest. New Drugs 20, 201–208 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Stadler, W. M. et al. Successful implementation of the randomized discontinuation trial design: an application to the study of the putative antiangiogenic agent carboxyaminoimidazole in renal cell carcinoma–CALGB 69901. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 3726–3732 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Guidance for Industry. General Considerations for the Clinical Evaluation of Drugs p6 [online], http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/old034fn.pdf.(1997).

  41. Food and Drug Administration. Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products [online], http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/whitepaper.html#execsummary (2004).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark J. Ratain.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Related links

Related links

DATABASES

National Cancer Institute

Colorectal Cancer

non-small cell lung cancer

Renal carcinoma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Michaelis, L., Ratain, M. Measuring response in a post-RECIST world: from black and white to shades of grey. Nat Rev Cancer 6, 409–414 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1883

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1883

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing