4.4 Review

Pulmonary imaging after stereotactic radiotherapy-does RECIST still apply?

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 89, Issue 1065, Pages -

Publisher

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20160113

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research
  3. Cancer Care Ontario

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for the treatment of primary lung cancer and metastatic disease is rapidly increasing. However, the presence of benign fibrotic changes on CT imaging makes response assessment following SABR a challenge, as these changes develop with an appearance similar to tumour recurrence. Misclassification of benign fibrosis as local recurrence has resulted in unnecessary interventions, including biopsy and surgical resection. Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) are widely used as a universal set of guidelines to assess tumour response following treatment. However, in the context of non-spherical and irregular post-SABR fibrotic changes, the RECIST criteria can have several limitations. Positron emission tomography can also play a role in response assessment following SABR; however, false-positive results in regions of inflammatory lung post-SABR can be amajor clinical issue and optimal standardized uptake values to distinguish fibrosis and recurrence have not been determined. Although validated CT high-risk features show a high sensitivity and specificity for predicting recurrence, most recurrences are not detected until more than 1-year post-treatment. Advanced quantitative radiomic analysis on CT imaging has demonstrated promise in distinguishing benign fibrotic changes from local recurrence at earlier time points, and more accurately, than physician assessment. Overall, the use of RECIST alone may prove inferior to novel metrics of assessing response.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available