Response assessment in recurrent glioblastoma treated with irinotecan-bevacizumab: comparative analysis of the Macdonald, RECIST, RANO, and RECIST + F criteria

Abstract

Traditionally, the most widely used criteria for response assessment in glioblastoma have been Macdonald and the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST). Recently, new criteria addressing contrast enhancement and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR)/T2 hyperintensity have been defined (the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria) to better evaluate the effect of antiangiogenic therapy. Whether FLAIR/T2 imaging could also be helpful to refine RECIST criteria remains unresolved. This study proposed the RECIST + F criteria and compared the 4 methods (Macdonald, RECIST, RANO, and RECIST + F) to determine their agreement in identifying response and progression of recurrent glioblastomas to irinotecan-bevacizumab. Patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with second-line irinotecan-bevacizumab were eligible. Clinical status, corticosteroid dose, and 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional measurements of tumor contrast enhancement and FLAIR hyperintensity were retrospectively assessed. Response and progression were determined according to each set of criteria. Seventy-eight patients were included. Response rates ranged from 34.2% with RECIST + F to 44.7% with Macdonald criteria. Agreement among the 4 methods in determining response and type of progression was high (kappa statistic > 0.75). One-third of patients exhibited nonenhancing progression with stable or improved contrast enhancement. Median progression-free survival was predicted by RECIST, at 13.6 weeks; RECIST + F, 12.3; Macdonald, 12.7; and RANO, 11.7 (P = .840). Intra- and interobserver correlations were high for both contrast enhancement and FLAIR hyperintensity measurements. There was a strong concordance among the different methods in determining response and progression to irinotecan-bevacizumab. Criteria integrating FLAIR hyperintensity tended, however, to reduce response rates and progression-free survival compared with criteria considering only contrast enhancement. The 1-dimensional approach appeared to be as valid as the 2-dimensional approach.

Fig. 1.

Patterns of radiological progression. Local contrast-enhanced recurrence (A), distant contrast-enhanced recurrence (B), and diffuse nonenhancing recurrence (C). The top panels are baseline scans, and the bottom panels are scans at recurrence.

Fig. 2.

Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival according to the different criteria.