Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 24, 2025

PET and MRI Guided Irradiation of a Glioblastoma Rat Model Using a Micro-irradiator
Published on: December 28, 2017
Patient eligibility for trials with imaging response assessment at the time of molecular tumor board presentation
Nabeel Mansour1, Kathrin Heinrich2,3, Danmei Zhang2,3,4
1Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Purpose:
To assess the eligibility of patients with advanced or recurrent solid malignancies presented to a molecular tumor board (MTB) at a large precision oncology center for inclusion in trials with the endpoints objective response rate (ORR) or duration of response (DOR) based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST version 1.1).
Methods:
Prospective patients with available imaging at the time of presentation in the MTB were included. Imaging data was reviewed for objectifiable measurable disease (MD) according to RECIST v1.1. Additionally, we evaluated the patients with MD for representativeness of the identified measurable lesion(s) in relation to the overall tumor burden.
Results:
262 patients with different solid malignancies were included. 177 patients (68%) had MD and 85 (32%) had non-measurable disease (NMD) at the time point of MTB presentation in accordance with RECIST v1.1. MD was not representative of the overall tumor burden in eleven patients (6%). The main reasons for NMD were lesions with longest diameter shorter than 10 mm (22%) and non-measurable peritoneal carcinomatosis (18%). Colorectal cancer and malignant melanoma displayed the highest rates of MD (> 75%). In contrast, gastric cancer, head and neck malignancies, and ovarian carcinoma had the lowest rates of MD (< 55%). In case of MD, the measurable lesions were representative of the overall tumor burden in the vast majority of cases (94%).
Conclusion:
Approximately one third of cancer patients with advanced solid malignancies are not eligible for treatment response assessment in trials with endpoints ORR or DOR at the time of MTB presentation. The rate of patients eligible for trials with imaging endpoints differs significantly based on the underlying malignancy and should be taken under consideration during the planning of new precision oncology trials.
Insights
Approximately one-third of advanced cancer patients lack measurable disease for clinical trials assessing treatment response. Eligibility for trials with imaging endpoints varies significantly by cancer type, impacting precision oncology trial design.
Area of Science:
- Oncology
- Clinical Trial Design
- Medical Imaging
Background:
- Precision oncology relies on molecular tumor boards (MTBs) to match patients with targeted therapies.
- Clinical trials often require measurable disease for assessing treatment response endpoints like objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR).
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the eligibility of patients with advanced solid malignancies presenting to an MTB for clinical trials using RECIST v1.1 imaging endpoints.
- To determine the proportion of patients with measurable disease (MD) suitable for ORR/DOR assessment.
Main Methods:
- Prospective analysis of patients presenting to a molecular tumor board.
- Review of imaging data using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST v1.1) to identify measurable disease.
- Assessment of the representativeness of measurable lesions relative to overall tumor burden.
Main Results:
- 68% of 262 patients had measurable disease (MD) at MTB presentation; 32% had non-measurable disease (NMD).
- Main reasons for NMD included small lesions (<10 mm) and non-measurable peritoneal carcinomatosis.
- Colorectal cancer and melanoma showed high rates of MD (>75%), while gastric, head/neck, and ovarian cancers had lower rates (<55%).
Conclusions:
- About one-third of advanced cancer patients are ineligible for trials with imaging endpoints (ORR/DOR) at MTB presentation.
- Patient eligibility for imaging-based trials is influenced by malignancy type, necessitating consideration in precision oncology trial planning.
More Related Videos
04:09Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Published on: October 10, 2018
10:27Testing Targeted Therapies in Cancer using Structural DNA Alteration Analysis and Patient-Derived Xenografts
Published on: July 25, 2020