Literature DB >> 24025927

Response criteria in oncologic imaging: review of traditional and new criteria.

Temel Tirkes1, Margaret A Hollar, Mark Tann, Marc D Kohli, Fatih Akisik, Kumaresan Sandrasegaran.   

Abstract

There has been a proliferation and divergence of imaging-based tumor-specific response criteria over the past 3 decades whose purpose is to achieve objective assessment of treatment response in oncologic clinical trials. The World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, published in 1981, were the first response criteria and made use of bidimensional measurements of tumors. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were created in 2000 and revised in 2009. The RECIST criteria made use of unidimensional measurements and addressed several pitfalls and limitations of the original WHO criteria. Both the WHO and RECIST criteria were developed during the era of cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents and are still widely used. However, treatment strategies changed over the past decade, and the limitations of using tumor size alone in patients undergoing targeted therapy (including arbitrarily determined cutoff values to categorize tumor response and progression, lack of information about changes in tumor attenuation, inability to help distinguish viable tumor from nonviable components, and inconsistency of size measurements) necessitated revision of these criteria. More recent criteria that are used for targeted therapies include the Choi response criteria for gastrointestinal stromal tumor, modified RECIST criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma, and Immune-related Response Criteria for melanoma. The Cheson criteria and Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors make use of positron emission tomography to provide functional information and thereby help determine tumor viability. As newer therapeutic agents and approaches become available, it may be necessary to further modify existing anatomy-based response-assessment methodologies, verify promising functional imaging methods in large prospective trials, and investigate new quantitative imaging technologies. © RSNA, 2013.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24025927     DOI: 10.1148/rg.335125214

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiographics        ISSN: 0271-5333            Impact factor:   5.333


  80 in total

1.  Late gadolinium MRI enhancement of colorectal liver metastases is associated with overall survival among nonsurgical patients.

Authors:  Helen M C Cheung; Jin K Kim; John Hudson; Natalie Coburn; Paul J Karanicolas; Calvin Law; Laurent Milot
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  The role of radiology in the evaluation of the immunotherapy efficacy.

Authors:  Marco Calandri; Federica Solitro; Valeria Angelino; Federica Moretti; Andrea Veltri
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  A Primer on RECIST 1.1 for Oncologic Imaging in Clinical Drug Trials.

Authors:  Kathleen Ruchalski; Marta Braschi-Amirfarzan; Michael Douek; Victor Sai; Antonio Gutierrez; Rohit Dewan; Jonathan Goldin
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2021-05

4.  No-gold-standard evaluation of image-acquisition methods using patient data.

Authors:  Abhinav K Jha; Eric Frey
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2017-03-10

Review 5.  Novel Quantitative Imaging for Predicting Response to Therapy: Techniques and Clinical Applications.

Authors:  Kaustav Bera; Vamsidhar Velcheti; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book       Date:  2018-05-23

Review 6.  Immune-related tumour response assessment criteria: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Bhanusupriya Somarouthu; Susanna I Lee; Trinity Urban; Cheryl A Sadow; Gordon J Harris; Avinash Kambadakone
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Can we avoid axillary lymph node dissection in N2 breast cancer patients with chemo-sensitive tumours such as HER2 and TNBC?

Authors:  Amparo Garcia-Tejedor; Sergi Fernandez-Gonzalez; Raul Ortega; Miguel Gil-Gil; Hector Perez-Montero; Eulalia Fernandez-Montolí; Agostina Stradella; Sabela Recalde; Teresa Soler; Anna Petit; Maria Teresa Bajen; Ana Benitez; Anna Guma; Miriam Campos; Maria J Pla; Evelyn Martinez; Maria Laplana; Sonia Pernas; Diana Perez-Sildekova; Isabel Catala; Jordi Ponce; Catalina Falo
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-10-17       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  DCE-MRI time-intensity curve visual inspection to assess pathological response after neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer.

Authors:  Antonella Petrillo; Roberta Fusco; Mario Petrillo; Vincenza Granata; Francesco Bianco; Massimiliano Di Marzo; Paolo Delrio; Fabiana Tatangelo; Gerardo Botti; Biagio Pecori; Antonio Avallone
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 2.374

Review 9.  Functional MR Imaging Techniques in Oncology in the Era of Personalized Medicine.

Authors:  Matthias R Benz; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Evis Sala
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 2.266

Review 10.  State-of-the-art molecular imaging in esophageal cancer management: implications for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.

Authors:  Jolinta Lin; Seth Kligerman; Rakhi Goel; Payam Sajedi; Mohan Suntharalingam; Michael D Chuong
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2015-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.