Comparison of RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 on computed tomography in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Oncology (Switzerland)

Volumn 86, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 117-121

  Jang, H J ^a   Kim, B C ^b   Kim, H S ^a   Kim, J H ^a   Song, H H ^a   Kim, J B ^a   Park, J J ^a   Yoon, S N ^b   Woo, J Y ^a   Zang, D Y ^a  

^a Hallym University Medical Center   (South Korea)

^b The Catholic University of Korea   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Colorectal cancer; RECIST 1.0; RECIST 1.1; Tumor response

Indexed keywords

FLUOROURACIL; FOLINIC ACID; IRINOTECAN; OXALIPLATIN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER STAGING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LYMPH NODE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METASTATIC COLORECTAL CANCER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIVER NEOPLASMS; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84893206594     PISSN: 00302414     EISSN: 14230232     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000357714     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A: Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981; 47: 207-214.
2. Therasse P: Measuring the clinical response. What does it mean? Eur J Cancer 2002; 38: 1817-1823.
3. Padhani AR, Husband JE: Are current tumour response criteria relevant for the 21 st century? Br J Radiol 2000; 73: 1031-1033.
4. Suzuki C, Jacobsson H, Hatschek T, et al: Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: practical approaches and limitations. Radiographics 2008; 28: 329-344.
5. 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: 205-216.
6. Sargent DJ, Rubinstein L, Schwartz L, et al: Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial endpoints. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 290-299.
7. Moskowitz CS, Jia X, Schwartz LH, Gonen M: A simulation study to evaluate the impact of the number of lesions measured on response assessment. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 300-310.
8. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al: New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 228-247.
9. 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.
10. Schwartz LH, Bogaerts J, Ford R, et al: Evaluation of lymph nodes with RECIST 1.1. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 261-267.
11. Dancey JE, Dodd LE, Ford R, et al: Recommendations for the assessment of progression in randomized cancer treatment trials. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 281-289.
12. Sun JM, Ahn MJ, Park MJ, et al: Accuracy of RECIST 1.1 for non-small cell lung cancer treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Lung Cancer 2010; 69: 105-109.
13. Nishino M, Jackman DM, Hatabu H, et al: New Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: comparison with original RECIST and impact on assessment of tumor response to target therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: 221-228.
14. Fuse N, Nagahisa-Oku E, Doi T, et al: Effect of RECIST revision on classification of target lesions and overall response in advanced gastric cancer patients. Gastric Cancer 2013; 16: 324-328.
15. Zacharia TT, Saini S, Halpern EF, Sumner JE: 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 2006; 186: 1067-1070.