Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20033179›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2010

RECIST revised: implications for the radiologist. A review article on the modified RECIST guideline.

Els L van Persijn van Meerten, Hans Gelderblom, Johan L Bloem

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 190 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Els L van Persijn van MeertenDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands. epersijn@lumc.nl
Hans Gelderblom
Johan L Bloem
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this review article is to familiarize radiologists with the recently revised Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), used in many anticancer drug trials to assess response and progression rate. The most important modifications are: a reduction in the maximum number of target lesions from ten to five, with a maximum of two per organ, with a longest diameter of at least 10 mm; in lymph nodes (LNs) the short axis rather than the long axis should be measured, with normal LN measuring <10 mm, non-target LN >or=10 mm but <15 mm and target LN >or=15 mm; osteolytic lesions with a soft tissue component and cystic tumours may serve as target lesions; an additional requirement for progressive disease (PD) of target lesions is not only a >or=20% increase in the sum of the longest diameter (SLD) from the nadir but also a >or=5 mm absolute increase in the SLD (the other response categories of target lesion are unchanged); PD of non-target lesions can only be applied if the increase in non-target lesions is representative of change in overall tumour burden; detailed imaging guidelines. Alternative response criteria in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and gastrointestinal stromal tumours are discussed.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAntineoplastic AgentsDiagnostic ImagingDrug EvaluationHumansInternationalityNeoplasmsRadiologyAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID20033179
PMCPMC2872013
OpenAlexW1975309478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.