Objective： Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors （RECIST） guideline version 1.0 （RECIST 1.0） was proposed as a new guideline for evaluating tumor response and has been widely accepted as a standardized mea...Objective： Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors （RECIST） guideline version 1.0 （RECIST 1.0） was proposed as a new guideline for evaluating tumor response and has been widely accepted as a standardized measure. With a number of issues being raised on RECIST 1.0, however, a revised RECIST guideline version 1.1 （RECIST 1.1） was proposed by the RECIST Working Group in 2009. This study was conducted to compare CT tumor response based on RECIST 1.1 vs. RECIST 1.0 in patients with advanced gastric cancer （AGC）. Methods： We reviewed 61 AGC patients with measurable diseases by RECIST 1.0 who were enrolled in other clinical trials between 2008 and 2010. These patients were retrospectively re-analyzed to determine the concordance between the two response criteria using the κ statistic. Results： The number and sum of tumor diameters of the target lesions by RECIST 1.1 were significantly lower than those by RECIST 1.0 （P〈0.0001）. However, there was excellent agreement in tumor response between RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 0（κ=0.844）. The overall response rates （ORRs） according to RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 were 32.7% （20/61） and 34.5% （20/58）, respectively. One patient with partial response （PR） based on RECIST 1.0 was reclassified as stable disease （SD） by RECIST 1.1. Of two patients with SD by RECIST 1.0, one was downgraded to progressive disease and the other was upgraded to PR by RECIST 1.1. Conclusions： RECIST 1.1 provided almost perfect agreement with RECIST 1.0 in the CT assessment of tumor response of AGC.展开更多
Background： The criterion of two target lesions per organ in the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors （RECIST） version I. 1 is an arbitrary one, being supported by no objective evidence. The optimal number ...Background： The criterion of two target lesions per organ in the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors （RECIST） version I. 1 is an arbitrary one, being supported by no objective evidence. The optimal number of target lesions per organ still needs to be investigated. We compared tumor responses using the RECIST 1.1 （measuring two target lesions per organ） and modified RECIST I. 1 （measuring the single largest lesion in each organ） in patients with small cell lung cancer （SCLC）. Methods： We reviewed medical records of patients with SCLC who received first-line treatment between January 2004 and December 2014 and compared tumor responses according to the two criteria using computed tomography. Results： There were a total of 34 patients who had at least two target lesions in any organ according to the RECIST 1.1 during the study period. The differences in the percentage changes of the sum of tumor measurements between RECIST 1.1 and modified RECIST 1.1 were all within 13%. Seven patients showed complete response and fourteen showed partial response according to the RECIST I.I. The overall response rate was 61.8%. When assessing with the modified RECIST 1.1 instead of the RECIST 1.1, tumor responses showed perfect concordance between the two criteria （k= 1.0）. Conclusions： The modified RECIST 1.I showed perfect agreement with the original RECIST 1.I in the assessment of tumor response of SCLC. Our result suggests that it may be enough to measure the single largest target lesion per organ for evaluating tumor response.展开更多
Cancer is common in our setting and represents a real public health concern in sub-Saharan Africa. This work aimed to assess the role of computed tomography in the follow-up of patients treated for cancer in Togo. Thi...Cancer is common in our setting and represents a real public health concern in sub-Saharan Africa. This work aimed to assess the role of computed tomography in the follow-up of patients treated for cancer in Togo. This was a retrospective descriptive study carried out over a period of one year, on patients with cancer, treated in the medical oncology unit of </span><i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">CHU</span></i> <i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Sylvanus Olympio</span></i><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> and having undergone at least two CT scans after cancer treatment. Computed tomography evaluation was performed according to the RECIST 1.1 guidelines. We had found</span><b> </b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">46 patients. The mean age of the patients was 54.22 years with a female predominance (sex ratio 1:2.5). Cancers mainly involved the urogenital system (60.8%) followed by the digestive system (28.3%). Carcinoma represented 93.5% of cases, mainly adenocarcinoma (45.7%). 74 target lesions were present at baseline, with 18.9% and 11.6% disappearing at the first and second assessments respectively. 36 non-target lesions were present at baseline, with 25% and 22.2% disappearing at the first and second assessments respectively. New lesions were found in the abdominal region in 54.5% of cases and in the thoracic region in 41.3% at the first and second assessments respectively. 58.7% of patients had a stable disease at the first assessment and 39.1% had progression at the second assessment. 50% of them had received chemotherapy in combination with surgery. Computed tomography using the RECIST 1.1 guidelines is a necessity in monitoring tumor extensions and in the follow-up of cancer patients.展开更多
文摘Objective： Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors （RECIST） guideline version 1.0 （RECIST 1.0） was proposed as a new guideline for evaluating tumor response and has been widely accepted as a standardized measure. With a number of issues being raised on RECIST 1.0, however, a revised RECIST guideline version 1.1 （RECIST 1.1） was proposed by the RECIST Working Group in 2009. This study was conducted to compare CT tumor response based on RECIST 1.1 vs. RECIST 1.0 in patients with advanced gastric cancer （AGC）. Methods： We reviewed 61 AGC patients with measurable diseases by RECIST 1.0 who were enrolled in other clinical trials between 2008 and 2010. These patients were retrospectively re-analyzed to determine the concordance between the two response criteria using the κ statistic. Results： The number and sum of tumor diameters of the target lesions by RECIST 1.1 were significantly lower than those by RECIST 1.0 （P〈0.0001）. However, there was excellent agreement in tumor response between RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 0（κ=0.844）. The overall response rates （ORRs） according to RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 were 32.7% （20/61） and 34.5% （20/58）, respectively. One patient with partial response （PR） based on RECIST 1.0 was reclassified as stable disease （SD） by RECIST 1.1. Of two patients with SD by RECIST 1.0, one was downgraded to progressive disease and the other was upgraded to PR by RECIST 1.1. Conclusions： RECIST 1.1 provided almost perfect agreement with RECIST 1.0 in the CT assessment of tumor response of AGC.
文摘Background： The criterion of two target lesions per organ in the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors （RECIST） version I. 1 is an arbitrary one, being supported by no objective evidence. The optimal number of target lesions per organ still needs to be investigated. We compared tumor responses using the RECIST 1.1 （measuring two target lesions per organ） and modified RECIST I. 1 （measuring the single largest lesion in each organ） in patients with small cell lung cancer （SCLC）. Methods： We reviewed medical records of patients with SCLC who received first-line treatment between January 2004 and December 2014 and compared tumor responses according to the two criteria using computed tomography. Results： There were a total of 34 patients who had at least two target lesions in any organ according to the RECIST 1.1 during the study period. The differences in the percentage changes of the sum of tumor measurements between RECIST 1.1 and modified RECIST 1.1 were all within 13%. Seven patients showed complete response and fourteen showed partial response according to the RECIST I.I. The overall response rate was 61.8%. When assessing with the modified RECIST 1.1 instead of the RECIST 1.1, tumor responses showed perfect concordance between the two criteria （k= 1.0）. Conclusions： The modified RECIST 1.I showed perfect agreement with the original RECIST 1.I in the assessment of tumor response of SCLC. Our result suggests that it may be enough to measure the single largest target lesion per organ for evaluating tumor response.
文摘Cancer is common in our setting and represents a real public health concern in sub-Saharan Africa. This work aimed to assess the role of computed tomography in the follow-up of patients treated for cancer in Togo. This was a retrospective descriptive study carried out over a period of one year, on patients with cancer, treated in the medical oncology unit of </span><i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">CHU</span></i> <i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Sylvanus Olympio</span></i><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> and having undergone at least two CT scans after cancer treatment. Computed tomography evaluation was performed according to the RECIST 1.1 guidelines. We had found</span><b> </b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">46 patients. The mean age of the patients was 54.22 years with a female predominance (sex ratio 1:2.5). Cancers mainly involved the urogenital system (60.8%) followed by the digestive system (28.3%). Carcinoma represented 93.5% of cases, mainly adenocarcinoma (45.7%). 74 target lesions were present at baseline, with 18.9% and 11.6% disappearing at the first and second assessments respectively. 36 non-target lesions were present at baseline, with 25% and 22.2% disappearing at the first and second assessments respectively. New lesions were found in the abdominal region in 54.5% of cases and in the thoracic region in 41.3% at the first and second assessments respectively. 58.7% of patients had a stable disease at the first assessment and 39.1% had progression at the second assessment. 50% of them had received chemotherapy in combination with surgery. Computed tomography using the RECIST 1.1 guidelines is a necessity in monitoring tumor extensions and in the follow-up of cancer patients.
