Comparison of response evaluation criteria in solid tumors with volumetric measurements for estimation of tumor burden in pancreatic adenocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma

BackgroundResponse evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) is the accepted method for determining tumor progression. However, RECIST may not estimate disease burden accurately because the axial plane often does not produce the actual longest diameter. Volumetric measurements may be an alternative to better determine tumor size. Our aim was to compare volumetric measurements with RECIST in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDA) and hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC).MethodsRECIST and volumetric measurements were determined in 9 patients with metastatic PDA and 17 patients with HCC who subsequently underwent liver transplantation. Gross pathologic measurements after hepatectomy also were analyzed for volumes.ResultsThree-dimensional diameter in volumetric analysis was 38% and 36% higher than RECIST diameter in PDA and HCC, respectively (P < .01). However, RECIST yielded 78% and 23% larger estimated tumor volumes than volumetric analysis in PDA and HCC, respectively (P < .01). Gross pathologic volume in HCC showed a linear correlation with both volumetric analysis (r = .95; P < .01) and RECIST (r = .96; P < .01) but RECIST significantly overestimated gross pathologic volume by an average of 28% (P < .01) whereas volumetric analysis was similar to gross pathologic volume (P = .56). In categorizing treatment response in PDA, RECIST and volumetric analysis were in moderate agreement (κ = .49).ConclusionsRECIST significantly may overestimate tumor burden compared with volumetric measurements in both PDA and HCC. Volumetric analysis may be the preferred method to detect tumor progression.