Radiological assessment of tumour response to anti-cancer drugs: Time to reappraise [1]

Acta Oncologica

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 316-318

  Nygren, Peter ^a   Blomqvist, Lennart ^b   Bergh, Jonas ^c   Åström, Gunnar ^a,c  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^c KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; IMATINIB;

ADVANCED CANCER; BONE METASTASIS; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER CONTROL; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG RESEARCH; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMOR; HUMAN; LETTER; LUNG CANCER; MESOTHELIOMA; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RADIODIAGNOSIS; SOLID TUMOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR VOLUME; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; DISEASE PROGRESSION; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 38349148706     PISSN: 0284186X     EISSN: 1651226X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02841860701829679     Document Type: Letter

References (17)

1. EMEA: www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/sutent/068706en6.pdf 2006.
2. Tang PA, Bentzen SM, Chen EX, Siu LL. Surrogate end points for median overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: Literature-based analysis from 39 randomized controlled trials of first-line chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007;29:4562-8.
3. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:205-16.
4. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J. RECIST revisited: A review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:1031-9.
5. Husband JE, Schwartz LH, Spencer J, Ollivier L, King DM, Johnson R, et al. Evaluation of the response to treatment of solid tumours - a consensus statement of the International Cancer Imaging Society. Br J Cancer 2004;90:2256-60.
6. Jaffe CC. Measures of response: RECIST, WHO and new alternatives. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3245-51.
7. Benjamin RS, Choi H, Macapinlac HA, Burgess MA, Patel SR, Chen LL, et al. We should decist using RECIST, at least in GIST. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1760-4.
8. Burton A. RECIST: Right time to renovate? Lancet Oncol 2007;8:464-5.
9. Buyse M, Thirion P, Carlson RW, Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Piedbois P. Relation between tumour response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. Lancet 2000;356:373-8.
10. Chen TT, Chute JP, Feigal E, Johnson BE, Simon R. A model to select chemotherapy regimens for phase III trials for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1601-7.
11. Lara PN, Redman MV, Kelly K, Edelman MJ, Williamson SK, Crowley JJ, et al. Alternative measures predicting clinical benefit in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) randomized trials: Implications for clinical trial design. Proceedings of ASCO 2006;24:A7006.
12. Johnson KR, Ringland C, Stokes BJ, Anthony DM, Freemantle N, Irs A, et al. Response rate or time to progression as predictors of survival in trials of metastatic colorectal cancer or non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2006;7:741-6.
13. EMEA. Guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. www.emea.eu.int 2006.
14. Pazdur R. Response rates, survival and chemotherapy trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1552-3.
15. Nygren P, Larsson R. Overview of the clinical efficacy of investigational anticancer drugs. J Internal Med 2003;253:46-75.
16. Michaelis LC, Ratain MJ. Measuring response in post-RECIST world: From black and white to shades of grey. Nature Rev Cancer 2006;6:409-14.
17. Tuma RS. Sometimes size doesn't matter: Reevaluating RECIST and tumor response rate endpoints. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:1272-4.