Tumor response evaluation in oncology: Current update

Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 479-484

  Shanbhogue, Alampady Krishna Prasad ^a   Karnad, Anand B ^a   Prasad, Srinivasa R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

oncology; RECIST; tumor response

Indexed keywords

CHEMOTHERAPY; TUMORS;

'CURRENT; BIDIMENSIONAL WORLD; EVALUATION CRITERIA; RESPONSE EVALUATION CRITERIA IN SOLID TUMOR; SCANNING MEASUREMENT; SCANNING TECHNIQUES; SOLID TUMORS; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR RESPONSE; TUMOR SIZE;

ONCOLOGY;

COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR VOLUME; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 77955170081     PISSN: 03638715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e3181db2670     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Saini S. Radiologic measurement of tumor size in clinical trials: past, present, and future. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:333-334.
2. Hopper KD, Singapuri K, Finkel A. Body CT and oncologic imaging. Radiology. 2000;215:270.
3. Blum JL, Jones SE, Buzdar AU, et al. Multicenter phase II study of capecitabine in paclitaxel-refTactory metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:485-493.
4. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, et al. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47:207-214.
5. James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M, et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:523-528.
6. Padhani AR, Ollivier L. The RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria: implications for diagnostic radiologists. Br J Radiol. 2001;74:983-986.
7. Warr D, McKinney S, Tannock I. Influence of measurement error on assessment of response to anticancer chemotherapy: proposal for new criteria of tumor response. J Clin Oncol. 1984;2:1040-1046.
8. Green S, Weiss GR. Southwest Oncology Group standard response criteria, endpoint definitions and toxicity criteria. Invest New Drugs. 1992;10:239-253.
9. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors (RECIST guidelines).J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205-216. (Pubitemid 30099779)
10. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J. RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42: 1031-1039.
11. Suzuki C, Jacobsson H, Hatschek T, et al. Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: practical approaches and limitations. Radiographics. 2008;28:329-344.
12. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228-247.
13. Bogaerts J, Ford R, Sargent D, et al. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:248-260.
14. Moskowitz CS, Jia X, Schwartz LH, et al. A simulation study to evaluate the impact of the number of lesions measured on response assessment. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:300-310.
15. Forner A, Ayuso C, Varela M, et al. Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: are response evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable? Cancer. 2009;115:616-623.
16. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, et al. Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1753-1759.
17. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2335-2342.
18. Hudes G, Carducci M, Tomczak P, et al. Temsirolimus, interferon alfa, or both for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2007;356: 2271-2281. (Pubitemid 46849157)
19. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2009;359:378-390.
20. Llovet JM, Di Bisceglie AM, Bruix J, et al. Design and endpoints of clinical trials in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;100: 698-711.
21. Choi H. Response evaluation of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Oncologist. 2008;13(suppl 2):4-7.
22. Semelka RC, Shoenut JP, Ascher SM, et al. Solitary hepatic metastasis: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and MR imaging with fat-suppressed T2-weighted, breath-hold T1-weighted FLASH, and dynamic gadolinium-enhanced FLASH sequences. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1994;4:319-323.
23. Yamashita Y, Mitsuzaki K, Yi T, et al. Small hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver damage: prospective comparison of detection with dynamic MR imaging and helical CT of the whole liver. Radiology. 1996;200:79-84.
24. Oudkerk M, Torres CG, Song B, et al. Characterization of liver lesions with mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MR imaging: multicenter study comparing MR and dual-phase spiral CT. Radiology. 2002;223:517-524.
25. Elsayes KM, Leyendecker JR, Menias CO, et al. MRI characterization of 124 CT-indeterminate focal hepatic lesions: evaluation of clinical utility. HPB (Oxford). 2007;9:208-215.
26. Koh DM, Blackledge M, Collins DJ, et al. Reproducibility and changes in the apparent diffusion coefficients of solid tumours treated with combretastatin A4 phosphate and bevacizumab in a two-centre phase I clinical trial. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:2728-2738.
27. Rosen MA, Schnall MD. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for assessing tumor vascularity and vascular effects of targeted therapies in renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(2 pt 2):770s-776s.
28. McMahon CJ, Bloch BN, Lenkinski RE, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in the evaluation of patients with prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin NAm. 2009;17:363-383.
29. Yamashita Y, Komohara Y, Takahashi M, et al. Abdominal helical CT: evaluation of optimal doses of intravenous contrast material-a prospective randomized study. Radiology. 2000;216:718-723.
30. Urban BA, Fishman EK, Kuhlman JE, et al. Detection of focal hepatic lesions with spiral CT: comparison of 4- and 8-mm interscan spacing. AJR. 1993;160:783-785.
31. Haider MA, Amitai MM, Rappaport DC, et al. Multi-detector row helical CT in preoperative assessment of small (< or = 1.5 cm) liver metastases: is thinner collimation better? Radiology. 2002; 225, 137-142
32. Brasch R, Pham C, Shames D, et al. Assessing tumor angiogenesis using macromolecular MR imaging contrast media. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;7:68-74.
33. Daldrup-Link HE, Okuhata Y, Wolfe A, et al. Decrease in tumor apparent permeability-surface area product to a MRI macromolecular contrast medium following angiogenesis inhibition with correlations to cytotoxic drug accumulation. Microcirculation. 2004;11:387-396.
34. Barrett T, Kobayashi H, Brechbiel M, et al. Macromolecular MRI contrast agents for imaging tumor angiogenesis. Eur J Radiol. 2006;60:353-366.
35. Barrett T, Brechbiel M, Bernardo M, et al. MRI of tumor angiogenesis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26:235-249.