open access
Vol 64, No 4 (2014)
Review paper
Published online: 2014-09-01
Get Citation
Evaluation of response to treatment — criteria RECIST 1.1
DOI: 10.5603/NJO.2014.0055
·
Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology 2014;64(4):331-335.
open access
Vol 64, No 4 (2014)
Review article
Published online: 2014-09-01
Abstract
The assessment of objective response is important to the able to evaluated treatment outcome. Since its introduction in 2000, RECIST has been widely accepted to standardize the measurement of tumour response in clinical trials. The revised version 1.1 of RECIST is the currently recommended method of tumour response assessment in clinical trialsand in routine practice. Major changes in version 1.1 include: reduction of the number of target lesions, lymph node measurement of the nodal short axis, revised definition of progressive disease and implementation the new methods of tumour assessment. The objective of this article is to review the practical aspects of the new RECIST guideline version 1.1.
Abstract
The assessment of objective response is important to the able to evaluated treatment outcome. Since its introduction in 2000, RECIST has been widely accepted to standardize the measurement of tumour response in clinical trials. The revised version 1.1 of RECIST is the currently recommended method of tumour response assessment in clinical trialsand in routine practice. Major changes in version 1.1 include: reduction of the number of target lesions, lymph node measurement of the nodal short axis, revised definition of progressive disease and implementation the new methods of tumour assessment. The objective of this article is to review the practical aspects of the new RECIST guideline version 1.1.
Get Citation
About this articleTitle
Evaluation of response to treatment — criteria RECIST 1.1
Journal
Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology
Issue
Article type
Review paper
Pages
331-335
Published online
2014-09-01
Page views
3472
Article views/downloads
90031
DOI
10.5603/NJO.2014.0055
Bibliographic record
Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology 2014;64(4):331-335.
Authors
Adam Płużański