Literature DB >> 19956529

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

Jung-Hye Choi1, Myung-Ju Ahn, Hyan-Chul Rhim, Jin-Woo Kim, Gang-Hong Lee, Young-Yeul Lee, In-Soon Kim.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study compared the WHO criteria with the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) in the same patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in order to determine the significance of the RECIST. In addition, this study compared the estimations of medical oncologists with those of a radiologist.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2002 and 2005, a total of 48 patients (male: female ratio, 29:19; median age, 58 years) with measurable lesions receiving chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal carcinoma were enrolled in this study. Two medical oncologists and one radiologist, who were blinded to the patients' condition, independently reviewed all the CT images. The results were compared using a kappa test.
RESULTS: The kappa test for concordance between the WHO and RECIST criteria of the medical oncologists and the radiologist were 0.908 and 0.841, respectively. The level of concordance between the investigators using the WHO and RECIST were 0.722 and 0.753, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The RECIST criteria are comparable to the WHO criteria in evaluating the response of colorectal carcinoma, but have simple and reproducible guidelines. The use of RECIST is recommended for evaluating the treatment efficacy in clinical trials and practice.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Metastatic colorectal carcinoma; RECIST; Tumor response; WHO

Year:  2005        PMID: 19956529      PMCID: PMC2785927          DOI: 10.4143/crt.2005.37.5.290

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 1598-2998            Impact factor:   4.679


  9 in total

1.  Assessment of tumour response to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: accuracy of the RECIST criteria.

Authors:  V Trillet-Lenoir; G Freyer; P Kaemmerlen; A Fond; O Pellet; C Lombard-Bohas; J L Gaudin; G Lledo; R Mackiewicz; M C Gouttebel; H Moindrot; J D Boyer; L Chassignol; N Stremsdoerfer; F Desseigne; J M Moreau; F Hedelius; A Moraillon; F Chapuis; J P Bleuse; Y Barbier; M O Heilmann; P J Valette
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  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.

Authors:  P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-02-02       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for interobserver variability. Groupe Français d'Immunothérapie of the Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer.

Authors:  P Thiesse; L Ollivier; D Di Stefano-Louineau; S Négrier; J Savary; K Pignard; C Lasset; B Escudier
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement.

Authors:  K James; E Eisenhauer; M Christian; M Terenziani; D Vena; A Muldal; P Therasse
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-03-17       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Reporting results of cancer treatment.

Authors:  A B Miller; B Hoogstraten; M Staquet; A Winkler
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1981-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Modified RECIST criteria for assessment of response in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Authors:  M J Byrne; A K Nowak
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 32.976

7.  Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response.

Authors:  Jeremy J Erasmus; Gregory W Gladish; Lyle Broemeling; Bradley S Sabloff; Mylene T Truong; Roy S Herbst; Reginald F Munden
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-07-01       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Radiological measurement of breast cancer metastases to lung and liver: comparison between WHO (bidimensional) and RECIST (unidimensional) guidelines.

Authors:  Srinivasa R Prasad; Sanjay Saini; James E Sumner; Peter F Hahn; Dushyant Sahani; Giles W Boland
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.826

9.  Measuring response in solid tumors: comparison of RECIST and WHO response criteria.

Authors:  Joon Oh Park; Soon Il Lee; Seo Young Song; Kihyun Kim; Won Seog Kim; Chul Won Jung; Young Suk Park; Young-Hyuk Im; Won Ki Kang; Mark Hong Lee; Kyung Soo Lee; Keunchil Park
Journal:  Jpn J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.019

  9 in total
  20 in total

1.  Evaluation of circulating cell-free DNA as a molecular monitoring tool in patients with metastatic cancer.

Authors:  Clemens Hufnagl; Michael Leisch; Lukas Weiss; Thomas Melchardt; Martin Moik; Daniela Asslaber; Geisberger Roland; Philipp Steininger; Thomas Meissnitzer; Daniel Neureiter; Richard Greil; Alexander Egle
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2019-12-09       Impact factor: 2.967

2.  Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Omar Abdel-Rahman; Zeinab Elsayed
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-01-24

3.  Nucleotide excision repair gene polymorphisms and prognosis of non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy: A meta-analysis based on 44 studies.

Authors:  Dongning Huang; Yang Zhou
Journal:  Biomed Rep       Date:  2014-05-19

Review 4.  What scans we will read: imaging instrumentation trends in clinical oncology.

Authors:  Thomas Beyer; Luc Bidaut; John Dickson; Marc Kachelriess; Fabian Kiessling; Rainer Leitgeb; Jingfei Ma; Lalith Kumar Shiyam Sundar; Benjamin Theek; Osama Mawlawi
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 3.909

Review 5.  Trials of vaccines for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Is there any hope of an improved prognosis?

Authors:  Toru Mizuguchi; Toshihiko Torigoe; Fukino Satomi; Hiroaki Shima; Goro Kutomi; Shigenori Ota; Masayuki Ishii; Hiroshi Hayashi; Sumiyo Asakura; Yoshihiko Hirohashi; Makoto Meguro; Yasutoshi Kimura; Toshihiko Nishidate; Kenji Okita; Masaho Ishino; Atsushi Miyamoto; Masamitsu Hatakenaka; Noriyuki Sato; Koichi Hirata
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2015-02-05       Impact factor: 2.540

6.  Comparison of the RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Cytotoxic Chemotherapy.

Authors:  Hyun Chang Choi; Jung Han Kim; Hyeong Su Kim; Soong Goo Jung; Sang Muk Hwang; Sung Bae Ju; Ik Yang
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 4.207

7.  The assessment of tumor response by measuring the single largest lesion per organ in metastatic tumors: a pooled analysis of previously reported data.

Authors:  Hyun Joo Jang; Ji Woong Cho; Bumjung Park; Hyun Chang Choi; Hyeong Su Kim; Jung Han Kim
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2015-01-05       Impact factor: 4.207

8.  Salvage systemic therapy for advanced gastric and oesophago-gastric junction adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Yoko Tomita; Max Moldovan; Rachael Chang Lee; Amy Hc Hsieh; Amanda Townsend; Timothy Price
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-11-19

Review 9.  Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody-based therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of the effect of PIK3CA mutations in KRAS wild-type patients.

Authors:  Lulu Huang; Zhenfang Liu; Donghong Deng; Aihua Tan; Ming Liao; Zengnan Mo; Xiaobo Yang
Journal:  Arch Med Sci       Date:  2014-02-23       Impact factor: 3.318

10.  Comparison of RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 in Patients with Metastatic Cancer: A Pooled Analysis.

Authors:  Jung Han Kim; Seon Jeong Min; Hyun Joo Jang; Ji Woong Cho; Soo Ho Kim; Hyeong Su Kim
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 4.207

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.