Components of Radiologic Progressive Disease Defined by RECIST 1.1 in Patients with Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Background Progression-free survival (PFS) determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) is the reference standard to assess efficacy of treatments in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Purpose To assess the most common components of radiologic progressive disease as defined by RECIST 1.1 in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma and how the progression events impact PFS. Materials and Methods This secondary analysis of the phase III METEOR trial conducted between 2013 and 2014 included patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, with at least one target lesion at baseline and one follow-up time point, who were determined according to RECIST 1.1 to have progressive disease. A chest, abdominal, and pelvic scan were acquired at each time point. Kruskal-Wallis analysis was used to test differences in median PFS among the RECIST 1.1 progression events. The Holm-Bonferroni method was used to compare the median PFS of the progression events for the family-wise error rate of 5% to adjust P values for multiple comparisons. Results Of the 395 patients (296 men, 98 women, and one patient with sex not reported; mean age, 61 years ± 10), 73 (18.5%) had progression due to non–target disease, 105 (26.6%) had new lesions, and 126 (31.9%) had progression of target lesions (defined by an increase in the sum of diameters). Patients with progression of non–target disease and those with new lesions had shorter PFS than patients with progression defined by the target lesions (median PFS, 2.8 months [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.9 months, 3.7 months] and 3.6 months [95% CI: 3.3 months, 3.7 months] vs 5.4 months [95% CI: 5.0 months, 5.5 months], respectively [P < .01]). Conclusion The most common causes for radiologic progression of renal cell carcinoma were based on non–target disease and new lesions rather than change in target lesions, despite this being considered uncommon in the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 literature. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Kuhl in this issue.