uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: practical approaches and limitations
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Oncology, Radiology and Clinical Immunology, Radiology.
Show others and affiliations
2008 (English)In: Radiographics, ISSN 0271-5333, E-ISSN 1527-1323, Vol. 28, no 2, 329-44 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective response assessment is important to describe the treatment effect of anticancer drugs. Standardization by using a "common language" is also important for comparison of results from different trials. In contrast to clinical results, which can be subjective, diagnostic imaging provides a greater opportunity for objectivity and standardization. It was generally accepted that a decrease in tumor size correlated with treatment effect; as a result, imaging was adopted for lesion measurement in the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria in 1979. However, because of some limitations of the WHO criteria, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were introduced in 2000. In RECIST, imaging was recognized as indispensable for response evaluation of solid tumors. Nevertheless, the widespread use of multidetector computed tomography and other imaging innovations have made RECIST outdated, with a concomitant need for modifications. Meanwhile, newer anticancer agents with targeted mechanisms of action have demonstrated an inherent limitation and unsuitability of anatomic tumor evaluation that assesses only lesion size. In addition, the effect of these new drugs changes the paradigm according to which tumor response or response rate is measured. Complete and partial responses cannot be the end points in all clinical trials; in some cases, disease control or progression-free survival may be the more relevant end point.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2008. Vol. 28, no 2, 329-44 p.
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-105128DOI: 10.1148/rg.282075068PubMedID: 18349443OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-105128DiVA: diva2:220535
Available from: 2009-06-01 Created: 2009-06-01 Last updated: 2012-03-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Torkzad, Michael R.

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Torkzad, Michael R.
By organisation
Radiology
In the same journal
Radiographics
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 418 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf