Response assessment in solid tumours: A comparison of WHO, SWOG and RECIST guidelines

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 81, Issue 966, 2008, Pages 444-449

  Julka, P K ^a   Doval, D C ^b   Gupta, S ^c   Rath, G K ^a  

^a ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (India)

^b RAJIV GANDHI CANCER INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE   (India)

^c Catalyst Clinical Services Pvt Ltd   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYTOTOXIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; GALLBLADDER CANCER; HUMAN; LIFE EXPECTANCY; LIVER CELL CARCINOMA; OVARY CANCER; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SOLID TUMOR; TUMOR VOLUME; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC;

EID: 46849120190     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/32785946     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Zubrod CG, Schneiderman SM, Frei E III, Brindley C, Gold GL, Schnider B, et al. Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and triethylene thiophosphamide. J Chronic Dis 1960;11:7-33.
2. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization Offset Publication; 1979: 48.
3. Breast Cancer Task Force, Treatment Committee, National Cancer Institute. Breast cancer: suggested protocol guidelines for combination chemotherapy trials and for combined modality trials. Washington DC: US Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Publication no. (NIH); 1977:1192.
4. Hayward JL, Carbone PP, Heuson JC, Kumaoka S, Segaloff A, Rubens RD. Assessment of response to therapy in advanced breast cancer: a project of the programme on clinical oncology of the international union against cancer, Geneva, Switzerland. Cancer 1977;39:1289-94.
5. Moertel CG, Hanley JA. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer 1976;38:388-94.
6. Gehan EA, Schneidermann MA. Historical and methodological developments in clinical trials at the national cancer institute. Stat Med 1990;9:871-80.
7. Green S, Weiss GR. Southwest oncology group standard response criteria, endpoint definitions and toxicity criteria. Invest New Drugs 1992;10:239-53.
8. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Fubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:205-16.
9. Einarson TR, McGhan WF, Bootman JL, Sabers DL. Meta-analysis: quantitative integration of independent research results. Am J Hosp Pharm 1985;42:1957-64.
10. Velanovich V. Meta-analysis for combining bayesian probabilities. Med Hypotheses 1991;35:192-5.
11. Le Chevalier T, Brown A, Natale R, Scagliotti G, Vansteenkiste J, Van Meerbeeck JL, et al. Gemcitabine in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a meta-analysis of survival and progression free survival data. Lung Cancer 2003;41:70.