Radiologic assessment of response to therapy: Comparison of recist versions 1.1 and 1.0

Radiographics

Volumn 31, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 2093-2106

  Chalian, Hamid ^a   Töre, Hüseyin Gürkan ^a   Horowitz, Jeanne M ^a   Salem, Riad ^a   Miller, Frank H ^a   Yaghmai, Vahid ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; NEOPLASM; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROGNOSIS; RADIOLOGY; STANDARD; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROGNOSIS; RADIOLOGY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 81255158363     PISSN: 02715333     EISSN: 15271323     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/rg.317115050     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981; 47(1):207-214.
2. 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(2):228-247.
3. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92(3):205-216.
4. Bogaerts J, Ford R, Sargent D, et al. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifcations to the RE-CIST criteria. Eur J Cancer 2009;45(2):248-260.
5. Moskowitz CS, Jia X, Schwartz LH, Gönen M. A simulation study to evaluate the impact of the number of lesions measured on response assessment. Eur J Cancer 2009;45(2):300-310.
6. Schwartz LH, Bogaerts J, Ford R, et al. Evaluation of lymph nodes with RECIST 1.1. Eur J Cancer 2009;45(2):261-267.
7. Perceptive Informatics. RECIST version 1.1 update: criteria comparison tool-topic 5, section 3.1.3. http://www.recist.com/recist-comparative/05.html. Accessed September 8, 2011.
8. Desar IM, van Herpen CM, van Laarhoven HW, Barentsz JO, Oyen WJ, van der Graaf WT. Beyond RECIST: molecular and functional imaging techniques for evaluation of response to targeted therapy. Cancer Treat Rev 2009;35(4):309-321.
9. Mantatzis M, Kakolyris S, Amarantidis K, Karayi-annakis A, Prassopoulos P. Treatment response classifcation of liver metastatic disease evaluated on imaging: are RECIST unidimensional measurements accurate? Eur Radiol 2009;19(7): 1809-1816.
10. Andea AA, Bouwman D, Wallis T, Visscher DW. Correlation of tumor volume and surface area with lymph node status in patients with multifocal/mul-ticentric breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004;100(1): 20-27.
11. Hoffelt SC, Marshall LM, Garzotto M, Hung A, Holland J, Beer TM. A comparison of CT scan to transrectal ultrasound-measured prostate volume in untreated prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(1):29-32.
12. Aghaei Lasboo A, Rezai P, Yaghmai V. Morphological analysis of pancreatic cystic masses. Acad Radiol 2010;17(3):348-351.
13. Gietema HA, Wang Y, Xu D, et al. Pulmonary nodules detected at lung cancer screening: interob-server variability of semiautomated volume measurements. Radiology 2006;241(1):251-257.
14. Rkein AM, Harrigal C, Friedman AC, Persky D, Krupinski E. Comparison of the accuracy of CT volume calculated by circumscription to prolate ellipsoid volume (bidimensional measurement multiplied by coronal long axis). Acad Radiol 2009;16(2): 181-186.
15. van Persijn, van Meerten EL, Gelderblom H, Bloem JL. RECIST revised: implications for the radiol-ogist-a review article on the modifed RECIST guideline. Eur Radiol 2010;20(6):1456-1467.
16. Nishino M, Jagannathan JP, Ramaiya NH, Van den Abbeele AD. Revised RECIST guideline version 1.1: what oncologists want to know and what radiologists need to know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195(2):281-289.
17. Shankar LK, Van den Abbeele A, Yap J, Benjamin R, Scheutze S, Fitzgerald TJ. Considerations for the use of imaging tools for phase II treatment trials in oncology. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(6): 1891-1897.
18. Marcus CD, Ladam-Marcus V, Cucu C, Bouché O, Lucas L, Hoeffel C. Imaging techniques to evaluate the response to treatment in oncology: current standards and perspectives. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2009;72(3):217-238.
19. Darkeh MH, Suzuki C, Torkzad MR. The minimum number of target lesions that need to be measured to be representative of the total number of target lesions (according to RECIST). Br J Radiol 2009;82 (980):681-686.
20. Perceptive Informatics. RECIST version 1.1 update: RECIST in practice-topic 4, selecting target lesions. http://www.recist.com/recist-in-practice/04.html. Accessed September 8, 2011.
21. Perceptive Informatics. RECIST version 1.1 update: RECIST in practice-topic 15, variable enhancement. http://www.recist.com/recist-in-practice/15.html. Accessed September 8, 2011.
22. Perceptive Informatics. RECIST version 1.1 update: RECIST in practice-topic 3, target measurement rules. http://www.recist.com/recist-in-practice/03.html. Accessed September 8, 2011.