RECIST 1.1 and serum thyroglobulin measurements in the evaluation of responses to sorafenib in patients with radioactive iodine‑refractory differentiated thyroid carcinoma

Ruan,Maomei; Shen,Yan; Chen,Libo; Li,Minghua

doi:10.3892/ol.2013.1424

RECIST 1.1 and serum thyroglobulin measurements in the evaluation of responses to sorafenib in patients with radioactive iodine‑refractory differentiated thyroid carcinoma

Authors:
- Maomei Ruan
- Yan Shen
- Libo Chen
- Minghua Li
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Nuclear Medicine, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200233, P.R. China, Department of Radiology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, P.R. China, Institute of Interventional and Diagnostic Radiology, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200233, P.R. China
Published online on: June 25, 2013 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2013.1424
Pages: 480-486

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The present study was designed to investigate the association between response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) 1.1 and 1.0, and to explore the utility of thyroglobulin (Tg) measurements in assessing tumor responses to sorafenib in patients with radioactive iodine (RAI)‑refractory differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC). In total, 23 patients with RAI‑refractory DTC were enrolled. A comparison of RECIST 1.1 and 1.0 was performed in all patients with measurable disease. Following the exclusion of patients who were positive for anti‑Tg antibody, the correlation between RECIST 1.1 and Tg was investigated in patients with measurable disease, and the concordance of the change in Tg between these patients and the patients with non‑measurable disease only was analyzed over time. Tumor responses, assessed by RECIST 1.1 and 1.0, were concordant in 96% of the 23 records. However, the number of target lesions, according to RECIST 1.1, was significantly lower than when using RECIST 1.0. Progressive disease (PD) was identified in one of the five patients who underwent fluorodeoxyglucose‑positron emission tomography (FDG‑PET)/computed tomography (CT) scanning. A correlation between the Tg levels and the sum of the diameters of the target lesions was verified, with the percentage decrease in Tg levels significantly greater than that in the radiograph, demonstrating shrinkage. Furthermore, the percentage change in Tg levels was consistent between the patients with measurable disease and the subjects with non‑measurable disease only. In conclusion, in patients with RAI‑refractory DTC, RECIST 1.1 is highly concordant with RECIST 1.0 in the assessment of responses to sorafenib treatment, with the advantage of simplified procedures and the complementary use of FDG‑PET. Tg measurements, in concordance with RECIST 1.1, are valuable in the evaluation of tumor responses.

View Figures

View References

1.	Aschebrook-Kilfoy B, Ward MH, Sabra MM and Devesa SS: Thyroid cancer incidence patterns in the United States by histologic type, 1992–2006. Thyroid. 21:125–134. 2011.PubMed/NCBI
2.	Sherman SI: Thyroid carcinoma. Lancet. 361:501–511. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3.	Shaha AR, Shah JP and Loree TR: Patterns of nodal and distant metastasis based on histologic varieties in differentiated carcinoma of the thyroid. Am J Surg. 172:692–694. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4.	Durante C, Haddy N, Baudin E, et al: Long-term outcome of 444 patients with distant metastases from papillary and follicular thyroid carcinoma: benefits and limits of radioiodine therapy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 91:2892–2899. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5.	Deshpande HA, Gettinger SN and Sosa JA: Novel chemotherapy options for advanced thyroid tumors: small molecules offer great hope. Curr Opin Oncol. 20:19–24. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6.	Zhang J, Yang PL and Gray NS: Targeting cancer with small molecule kinase inhibitors. Nat Rev Cancer. 9:28–39. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7.	Wilhelm SM, Carter C, Tang L, et al: BAY 43-9006 exhibits broad spectrum oral antitumor activity and targets the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway and receptor tyrosine kinases involved in tumor progression and angiogenesis. Cancer Res. 64:7099–7109. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8.	Gupta-Abramson V, Troxel AB, Nellore A, et al: Phase II trial of sorafenib in advanced thyroid cancer. J Clin Oncol. 26:4714–4719. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9.	Kloos RT, Ringel MD, Knopp MV, et al: Phase II trial of sorafenib in metastatic thyroid cancer. J Clin Oncol. 27:1675–1684. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10.	Hoftijzer H, Heemstra KA, Morreau H, et al: Beneficial effects of sorafenib on tumor progression, but not on radioiodine uptake, in patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Eur J Endocrinol. 161:923–931. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11.	Cabanillas ME, Waguespack SG, Bronstein Y, et al: Treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patients with differentiated thyroid cancer: the M. D. Anderson experience. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 95:2588–2595. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12.	Chen L, Shen Y, Luo Q, Yu Y, Lu H and Zhu R: Response to sorafenib at a low dose in patients with radioiodine-refractory pulmonary metastases from papillary thyroid carcinoma. Thyroid. 21:119–124. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13.	Shen Y, Ruan M, Luo Q, et al: Brain metastasis from follicular thyroid carcinoma: treatment with sorafenib. Thyroid. 22:856–860. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14.	Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, 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. View Article : Google Scholar
15.	Gehan EA and Tefft MC: Will there be resistance to the RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors)? J Natl Cancer Inst. 92:179–181. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16.	Tuma RS: Sometimes size doesn’t matter: reevaluating RECIST and tumor response rate endpoints. J Natl Cancer Inst. 98:1272–1274. 2006.PubMed/NCBI
17.	Ratain MJ and Eckhardt SG: 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. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18.	Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al: New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 45:228–247. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar
19.	Fuse N, Nagahisa-Oku E, Doi T, et al: Effect of RECIST revision on classification of target lesions and overall response in advanced gastric cancer patients. Gastric Cancer. Aug 22–2012.(Epub ahead of print).
20.	Nishino M, Jackman DM, Hatabu H, et al: New Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: comparison with original RECIST and impact on assessment of tumor response to targeted therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 195:W221–W228. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
21.	Marotta V, Ramundo V, Camera L, et al: Sorafenib in advanced iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer: efficacy, safety and exploratory analysis of role of serum thyroglobulin and FDG-PET. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 78:760–767. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar
22.	Sun S and Schiller JH: Angiogenesis inhibitors in the treatment of lung cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 62:93–104. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23.	Nishino M, Jagannathan JP, Ramaiya NH and Van den Abbeele AD: Revised RECIST guideline version 1.1: What oncologists want to know and what radiologists need to know. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 195:281–289. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24.	Schlumberger M, Berg G, Cohen O, et al: Follow-up of low-risk patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma: a European perspective. Eur J Endocrinol. 150:105–112. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25.	Clark PM and Beckett G: Can we measure serum thyroglobulin? Ann Clin Biochem. 39:196–202. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26.	Spencer CA, Takeuchi M and Kazarosyan M: Current status and performance goals for serum thyroglobulin assays. Clin Chem. 42:164–173. 1996.PubMed/NCBI
27.	Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, et al: Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol. 21:2574–2582. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28.	Bachelot A, Cailleux AF, Klain M, et al: Relationship between tumor burden and serum thyroglobulin level in patients with papillary and follicular thyroid carcinoma. Thyroid. 12:707–711. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29.	Demers LM and Spencer CA: Laboratory medicine practice guidelines: laboratory support for the diagnosis and monitoring of thyroid disease. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 58:138–140. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30.	Mozley PD, Bendtsen C, Zhao B, et al: Measurement of tumor volumes improves RECIST-based response assessments in advanced lung cancer. Transl Oncol. 5:19–25. 2012.PubMed/NCBI
31.	Brose MS, Nutting CM, Sherman SI, et al: Rationale and design of decision: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic radioactive iodine (RAI)-refractory, differentiated thyroid cancer. BMC Cancer. 11:3492011.