Evaluation of the optimal number of lesions needed for tumor evaluation using the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group investigation

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 27, Issue 19, 2009, Pages 3205-3210

  Hillman, Shauna L ^a   An, Ming Wen ^a   O'Connell, Michael J ^a   Goldberg, Richard M ^a   Schaefer, Paul ^a   Buckner, Jan C ^a   Sargent, Daniel J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER INHIBITION; CLINICAL TRIAL; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOLID TUMOR; TREATMENT RESPONSE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE COURSE; NEOPLASM; PATHOLOGY; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE III AS TOPIC; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE PROGRESSION; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 67650327605     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.3269     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al: New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205-216, 2000
2. Roche K, Paul N, Smuck B, et al: Factors affecting workload of cancer clinical trials: Results of a multicenter study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 20:545-556, 2002
3. Johnson J, Williams G, Pazadur R: End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs. J Clin Oncol 21:1404-1411, 2003
4. Perez EA, Hillman DW, Mailliard JA, et al: Randomized phase II Study of two irinotecan scheduling for patients with metastatic breast cancer refractory to an anthracycline, a taxane, or both. J Clin Oncol 22:2849-2855, 2004
5. Mazumdar M, Smith A, Debroy P, et al: A theoretical approach to choosing the minimum number of multiple tumors required for assessing treatment response. J Clin Epidemiol 58:150-153, 2005
6. Schwartz L, Mazumdar M, Brown W, et al: Variability in response assessment in solid tumors. Clinical Cancer Res 9:4318-4323, 2003
7. Zacharia TT, Saini S, Halpern EF, et al: CT of colon cancer metastases to the liver using modified RECIST criteria: Determining the ideal number of target lesions to measure. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1067-1070, 2006
8. Eisenhauer EA: Response evaluation: Beyond RECIST. Ann Oncol 18:ix29-ix32, 2007
9. Karrison TG, Maitland ML, Stadler WM, et al: Design of phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: Application to a study of sorafinib and erlotinib in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:1455-1461, 2007