ReviewOncotarget2016
Comparison of the RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 in patients treated with targeted agents: a pooled analysis and review.
Review in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Shenqi Xiangyi granules in advanced gastric cancer chemotherapy.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Phase I Study of mTORC1/2 Inhibitor Sapanisertib (CB-228/TAK-228) in Combination with Metformin in Patients with mTOR/AKT/PI3K Pathway Alterations and Advanced Solid Malignancies.Cancer research communications · 2024Article
- Early drug development in solid tumours: analysis of National Cancer Institute-sponsored phase 1 trials.Lancet (London, England) · 2022Article
- Tumour growth rate improves tumour assessment and first-line systemic treatment decision-making for immunotherapy in patients with liver metastatic uveal melanoma.British journal of cancer · 2022Article
- Efficacy and safety of thoracoscopic resection for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
- Dual EGFR blockade with cetuximab and erlotinib combined with anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab in advanced solid tumors: a phase 1 dose escalation triplet combination trial.Experimental hematology & oncology · 2020Article
- Comparison of the morphologic criteria (RECIST) and metabolic criteria (EORTC and PERCIST) in tumor response assessments: a pooled analysis.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- PD-1/PD-L blockade in gastrointestinal cancers: lessons learned and the road toward precision immunotherapy.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2017Review
- EGFR or PD-L1 decision for first line therapy in a case series of EGFR positive and PD-L1 >50.Respiratory medicine case reports · 2017Article
- Targeted Lung Cancer Treatments and Eye Metastasis.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2017Review
- Comparison of the RECIST and PERCIST criteria in solid tumors: a pooled analysis and review.Oncotarget · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients treated with targeted agents were not included in the data warehouse when the RECIST 1.1 was revised in 2009. We conducted this pooled analysis to investigate the impact of the RECIST 1.1 on the assessment of tumor response in cancer patients treated with targeted agents. We surveyed MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed for articles with terms of the RECIST 1.0 or RECIST 1.1. We searched for all the references of relevant articles and reviews using the 'related articles' feature in the PubMed. There were six articles in the literature comparing the clinical impacts of the RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 in patients treated with targeted agents for advanced or metastatic cancer. A total of 322 patients were recruited from the six trials; 217 with non-small cell lung cancer, 23 with thyroid cancer, 20 with gastrointestinal stromal tumor, and 62 with renal cell carcinoma. Because of new lymph node criteria, eight patients (2.5%) had no target lesions when adopting the RECIST 1.1. The number of target lesions by the RECIST 1.1 was significantly lower than that by the RECIST 1.0 (P < 0.001). However, the RECIST 1.1 showed high concordance with the RECIST 1.0 in the assessment of best tumor responses (k = 0.908). Seventeen patients (5.6%) showed discrepancy in the best tumor response between the RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1. This pooled study demonstrates that the RECIST 1.1 shows the highly concordant response assessment with the RECIST 1.0 in patients treated with targeted agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.