Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25714313›Full record

ArticleAJR. American journal of roentgenology2015

RECIST 1.1 compared with RECIST 1.0 in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma receiving vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy.

Katherine M Krajewski, Mizuki Nishino, Nikhil H Ramaiya, Toni K Choueiri

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Imaging for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.The Urologic clinics of North America · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Katherine M Krajewski1 Department of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 450 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02115.
Mizuki Nishino
Nikhil H Ramaiya
Toni K Choueiri
Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center · US

Funding

CT Volume Measurement of Lung Cancer treated with Erlotinib: Genomic CorrelationK23CA157631 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI NISHINO, MIZUKI · 2011 to 2015
$902k
NCI NIH HHS 1K23CA157631NCI NIH HHS K23 CA157631
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) is the most widely accepted method to objectively assess response to therapy in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy. Both RECIST 1.0 and 1.1 have been used to assess response to VEGF-targeted therapies; however, systematic comparisons are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Sixty-two patients with metastatic RCC treated with VEGF-targeted therapies were retrospectively studied. Tumor measurements and response assessment according to RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 were compared, including the number of target lesions, baseline measurements, response at each follow-up, best overall response, and time to progression (TTP). Morphologic changes and new enhancement were also assessed over the course of treatment, and TTP was evaluated using morphologic change criteria in combination with RECIST 1.1. RESULTS. The number of target lesions according to RECIST 1.1 was significantly fewer than by RECIST 1.0 (median, 2 vs 4; p < 0.0001). At first imaging follow-up, the percentage change of the sums of the diameter measurements by RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 were highly concordant (R = 0.857; mean shrinkage, 12.1% by RECIST 1.1 vs 10.8% by RECIST 1.0). Best response assessment was highly concordant between the two criteria (weighted κ = 0.819). There was no evidence of a difference in TTP by the two criteria, with a median TTP of 8.9 months (95% CI for the median, 5.5-13.9) by RECIST 1.1 and 8.9 months (95% CI for the median, 5.8-13.6) by RECIST 1.0. The median TTP by RECIST 1.1 alone was 8.9 months compared with 5.6 months for RECIST 1.1 and morphologic changes combined. CONCLUSION. RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 response assessments were overall highly concordant in patients with RCC treated with VEGF-targeted therapy, with fewer target lesions according to RECIST 1.1 but no difference in TTP.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, Renal CellFemaleHumansKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedMolecular Targeted TherapyNeoplasm StagingResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AVascular Endothelial Growth Factor ACTrenal cell carcinomaResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)tumor response assessmentvascular endothelial growth factor–targeted therapy

Identifiers

PMID25714313
PMCPMC4352691
OpenAlexW2144270952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.