[New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors].

By F. Duffaud, P. Therasse. Bulletin du Cancer, 2000

3,216 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d8c7d9a969741ba951a811b7594586f988bcfd4d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Le Lu
2. Holger R. Roth
3. R. Herbst
4. Ronald M. Summers
5. Vincent A. Miller
6. A. Cervantes
7. David H. Johnson
8. G. da Cunha Santos

Citations in the corpus

• Transarterial Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Which Technique Is More Effective? A Systematic Review of Cohort and Randomized Studies (2007, methodology): “Prior to the adoption of RECIST [84] criteria, the accepted objective response criteria were those defined by WHO [85] using the product of two perpendicular dimensions or crosssectional imaging.”
• OCEANS: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. (2011, background): “0.(10) Other key eligibility criteria included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1(11); life expectancy of at least 12 weeks; adequate bone marrow, coagulation, renal, and hepatic function; and signed, approved informed consent in accordance with federal, state, and local”
• Safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine regimens with or without bevacizumab as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: results of the TREE Study. (2008, methodology): “Responses were evaluated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and confirmed by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging after 4 to 6 weeks.(6) After treatment discontinuation, patients in TREE-2 were followed for survival at 3-month intervals for at least 2 years and every 6 ”
• New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). (2009, unknown): “(Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours), were published in 2000.(8) Key features of the original RECIST include definitions of minimum size of measurable lesions, instructions on how many lesions to follow (up to 10; a maximum five per organ site), and the use of unidimensional, rather than ”
• Randomized phase III study of panitumumab with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) compared with FOLFIRI alone as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. (2010, methodology): “Responses (complete response or partial response) were confirmed 28 days after the criteria for response were first met.(20) Patients were followed-up for safety for at least 30 days after the last study drug administration and for survival every 3 months.”
• Phase I safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity study of lapatinib (GW572016), a reversible dual inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases, in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic carcinomas. (2005, methodology): “Disease status was assessed predose, after 8 weeks of therapy, and every 8 weeks thereafter until withdrawal from the study using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) Guidelines.(29) Patients who did not have lesions that were assessable by RECIST (eg, dermatologic changes consi”
• A New 2.5D Representation for Lymph Node Detection using Random Sets of Deep Convolutional Neural Network Observations (2014, methodology): “A LN’s size is typically measured on Computed Tomography (CT) images following the RECIST guideline (Therasse et al., 2000).”
• Gefitinib in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial--INTACT 2. (2004, methodology): “Tumor response was evaluated according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors, the revised version of the International Union Against Cancer/WHO criteria [20].”