Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26502722›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2015

Modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors is superior to response evaluation criteria in solid tumors for assessment of responses to sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Juichi Takada, Hisashi Hidaka, Takahide Nakazawa, Masaaki Kondo, Kazushi Numata, Katsuaki Tanaka, Kotaro Matsunaga, Chiaki Okuse, Satoshi Kobayashi, Manabu Morimoto and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Evaluation and Prediction of Treatment Response for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Evaluation of liver tumour response by imaging.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2020
    Review
  20. 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

12 authors.

Juichi TakadaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Internal Medicine, Kitasato University Hospital, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1, Kitasato, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0375, Japan. jui-tkd@kitasato-u.ac.jp.
Hisashi HidakaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Internal Medicine, Kitasato University Hospital, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1, Kitasato, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0375, Japan. hisashi7@kitasato-u.ac.jp.
Takahide NakazawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Internal Medicine, Kitasato University Hospital, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1, Kitasato, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0375, Japan. tnakazaw@kitasato-u.ac.jp.
Masaaki KondoDepartment of Gastroenterological Center, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, Japan. mkondou@urahp.yokohama-cu.ac.jp.
Kazushi NumataDepartment of Gastroenterological Center, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, Japan. kz-numa@urahp.yokohama-cu.ac.jp.
Katsuaki TanakaDepartment of Gastroenterological Center, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, Japan. k_tanaka@yokohama-cu.ac.jp.
Kotaro MatsunagaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan. kotarom@marianna-u.ac.jp.
Chiaki OkuseDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan. c2okuse@marianna-u.ac.jp.
Satoshi KobayashiHepatobiliary and Pancreatic Medical Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center Hospital, Yokohama, Japan. kobayashis@kcch.jp.
Manabu MorimotoHepatobiliary and Pancreatic Medical Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center Hospital, Yokohama, Japan. m-morimoto@kcch.jp.
Shinichi OhkawaHepatobiliary and Pancreatic Medical Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center Hospital, Yokohama, Japan. s-ohk@kcch.jp.
Wasaburo KoizumiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Internal Medicine, Kitasato University Hospital, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1, Kitasato, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0375, Japan. koizumi@med.kitasato-u.ac.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (mRECIST) and RECIST are used to assess the effect of treatment with targeted agents for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this study was to determine which set of criteria is superior in patients with advanced HCC treated with sorafenib.

methodsA multicenter retrospective study to assess the tumor response and patient prognosis of 191 patients with HCC who had been treated with sorafenib from May 2009 through December 2011. We analyzed tumor responses as shown by contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan images according to RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST and compared the findings.

resultsThe median duration of follow-up was 9.7 months and median overall survival was 10.8 months. Twenty-five patients (13.1 %) were assessed as responders by mRECIST and 15 (7.8 %) by RECIST 1.1. There was a significant difference in overall survival (OS) between responders and non-responders according to mRECIST (P = 0.0117), but no significant difference in OS between responders and non-responders according to RECIST 1.1 (P = 0.0722). Sixteen patients (8.4 %) had no measurable enhanced target lesions that could be assessed as required by mRECIST; however, these patients could be assessed by RECIST 1.1. According to RECIST 1.1, eight of them had stable disease (SD) and eight had progressive disease (PD). There was a significant difference in OS between these SD and PD patients (P = 0.0312).

conclusionsPatients treated with sorafenib for HCC should be evaluated by mRECIST; RECIST 1.1 is preferable only for assessment of patients with lesions that are non-measurable according to mRESIST.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic AgentsCarcinoma, HepatocellularFemaleHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNiacinamidePhenylurea CompoundsRetrospective StudiesSorafenibSurvival AnalysisAntineoplastic AgentsNiacinamidePhenylurea CompoundsSorafenib

Identifiers

PMID26502722
PMCPMC4624170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.