Role of Imaging in Response Assessment and Individualised Treatment for Sarcomas

Abstract

The first systematic response evaluation criteria were established by WHO, based on the tumor size changes shortly after the computed tomography (CT) technique became available to the daily practice. RECIST, a simplified version of WHO criteria, and its newer version, RECIST1.1 are the currently available international response evaluation criteria in solid tumors and remains based on tumor size changes.While the introduction of molecularly targeted drugs has significantly improved the survival in patient with sarcomas, the evaluation of tumor response has become more complicated. Increasing number of studies have reported the lack of shrinkage in responding tumors and raised concerns of significant underestimation of responses using RECIST. The first such observation was made on gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) treated with imatinib. In GISTs responding to imatinib, the degree of contrast enhancement on CT typically decreases significantly compared with the baseline, and, regardless of whether tumors shrink, heterogeneous hyperattenuating tumors become homogeneous hypoattenuating tumors with a smaller enhancing solid component.In current oncology practice, CT is a widely accepted method of evaluating tumor response. CT images are relatively simple to acquire and can be reasonably reproduced with no significant technical obstacles. FDG-PET is highly sensitive and specific in identifying responding sarcomas. It has mostly been used as a problem solver and for those with marginally resectable GIST. More recently, the utility of whole body MRI is undergoing exploration.This article discusses the traditional size-based response evaluation criteria, and introduces new evidence based response evaluation based on changes in morphology in addition to changes in tumor size on CT images, and whole body imaging is introduced at the end.