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
The minimum number of target lesions that need to be measured to be representative of the total number of target lesions (according to RECIST)
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Oncology, Radiology and Clinical Immunology, Radiology.
2009 (English)In: British Journal of Radiology, ISSN 0007-1285, E-ISSN 1748-880X, Vol. 82, no 980, 681-6 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) were introduced as a means to classify tumour response with no definition of the minimum number of lesions. This study was conducted in order to evaluate discrepancies between full assessments based on either all target lesions or fewer lesions. RECIST evaluation was performed on separate occasions based on between one and seven of the target lesions, with simultaneous assessment of non-target lesions. 99 patients were included. 38 patients demonstrated progressive disease, in 61% of whom it was a result of the appearance of new lesions or unequivocal progress in non-target lesions. 32 patients showed stable disease, with 8 having results that differed when 1-3 target lesions were measured. 22 cases were considered as having partial regression, with only 1 case differing when performing 1-3 target lesion assessments. Seven cases demonstrated complete response. The number of discordant cases increased gradually from measuring three lesions to one target lesion. The average number of available target lesions among those with discrepancies was 7.1, which was significantly higher than those demonstrating concordance (4.1 lesions; p<0.05). In conclusion, measuring fewer than four target lesions might cause discrepancies when more than five target lesions are present.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2009. Vol. 82, no 980, 681-6 p.
National Category
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-118810DOI: 10.1259/bjr/72829563ISI: 000269180800011PubMedID: 19366735OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-118810DiVA: diva2:299510
Available from: 2010-02-23 Created: 2010-02-23 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
British Journal of Radiology
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 430 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