Literature DB >> 10088622

Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement.

K James1, E Eisenhauer, M Christian, M Terenziani, D Vena, A Muldal, P Therasse.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tumor shrinkage is a common end point used in screening new cytotoxic agents. The standard World Health Organization criterion for partial response is a 50% or more decrease in the sum of the products of two measurements (the maximum diameter of a tumor and the largest diameter perpendicular to this maximum diameter) of individual tumors. However, theoretically, the simple sum of the maximum diameters of individual tumors is more linearly related to cell kill than is the sum of the bidimensional products. It has been hypothesized that the calculation of bidimensional products is unnecessary, and a 30% decrease in the sum of maximum diameters of individual tumors (assuming spherical shape and equivalence to a 50% reduction in the sum of the bidimensional products) was proposed as a new criterion. We have applied the standard response and the new response criteria to the same data to determine whether the same number of responses in the same patients would result.
METHODS: Data from 569 patients included in eight studies of a variety of cancers were reanalyzed. The two response criteria were separately applied, and the results were compared using the kappa statistic. The importance of confirmatory measurements and the frequency of nonspherical tumors were also examined. In addition, for a subset of 128 patients, a unidimensional criterion for disease progression (30% increase in the sum of maximum diameters) was applied and compared with the standard definition of a 25% increase in the sum of the bidimensional products.
RESULTS: Agreement between the unidimensional and bidimensional criteria was generally found to be good. The kappa statistic for concordance for overall response was 0.95.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that one dimensional measurement of tumor maximum diameter may be sufficient to assess change in solid tumors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10088622     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/91.6.523

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  112 in total

1.  Can paediatric radiologists resist RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumours)?

Authors:  Kieran McHugh; Simon Kao
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2003-11

2.  A pilot study of volume measurement as a method of tumor response evaluation to aid biomarker development.

Authors:  Binsheng Zhao; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Chaya S Moskowitz; Mark G Kris; William Pao; Pingzhen Guo; Valerie M Rusch; Marc Ladanyi; Naiyer A Rizvi; Lawrence H Schwartz
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  Inhibition of the Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK and RET kinase pathways with the combination of the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib and the farnesyltransferase inhibitor tipifarnib in medullary and differentiated thyroid malignancies.

Authors:  David S Hong; Maria E Cabanillas; Jennifer Wheler; Aung Naing; Apostolia M Tsimberidou; Lei Ye; Naifa L Busaidy; Steven G Waguespack; Mike Hernandez; Adel K El Naggar; Alder K El Naggar; Savita Bidyasar; John Wright; Steven I Sherman; Razelle Kurzrock
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 5.958

Review 4.  Analysis of Drug Development Paradigms for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Authors:  Denis L Jardim; Débora de Melo Gagliato; Francis J Giles; Razelle Kurzrock
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 12.531

5.  Complete response to radiation therapy of orbital metastasis from hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Allison-M Quick; Mark Bloomston; Edward-Y Kim; Nathan-C Hall; Nina-A Mayr
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-12-21       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Phase I trial of a combination of the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib and the farnesyltransferase inhibitor tipifarnib in advanced malignancies.

Authors:  David S Hong; Said M Sebti; Robert A Newman; Michelle A Blaskovich; Lei Ye; Robert F Gagel; Stacy Moulder; Jennifer J Wheler; Aung Naing; Nizar M Tannir; Chaan S Ng; Steven I Sherman; Adel K El Naggar; Rabia Khan; Jon Trent; John J Wright; Razelle Kurzrock
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 12.531

7.  Predicting outcome by growth rate of locally recurrent retroperitoneal liposarcoma: the one centimeter per month rule.

Authors:  James O Park; Li-Xuan Qin; Francesco P Prete; Cristina Antonescu; Murray F Brennan; Samuel Singer
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Comparison of WHO and RECIST criteria for response in metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

Authors:  Jung-Hye Choi; Myung-Ju Ahn; Hyan-Chul Rhim; Jin-Woo Kim; Gang-Hong Lee; Young-Yeul Lee; In-Soon Kim
Journal:  Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2005-10-31       Impact factor: 4.679

9.  Quantitative imaging to assess tumor response to therapy: common themes of measurement, truth data, and error sources.

Authors:  Charles R Meyer; Samuel G Armato; Charles P Fenimore; Geoffrey McLennan; Luc M Bidaut; Daniel P Barboriak; Marios A Gavrielides; Edward F Jackson; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Paul E Kinahan; Nicholas Petrick; Binsheng Zhao
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.243

10.  Computed tomography assessment of response to therapy: tumor volume change measurement, truth data, and error.

Authors:  Michael F McNitt-Gray; Luc M Bidaut; Samuel G Armato; Charles R Meyer; Marios A Gavrielides; Charles Fenimore; Geoffrey McLennan; Nicholas Petrick; Binsheng Zhao; Anthony P Reeves; Reinhard Beichel; Hyun-Jung Grace Kim; Lisa Kinnard
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.243

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.