ReviewOncotarget2016
Comparison of the RECIST and PERCIST criteria in solid tumors: 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 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- PET/CT-Based Response Evaluation in Cancer-a Systematic Review of Design Issues.Molecular imaging and biology · 2020Pooled it
- Prognostic value of post-treatment ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in uterine cervical cancer patients treated with radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Phase II study of durvalumab and tremelimumab with front-line neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer: primary analysis in the original cohort of KGOG3046/TRU-D.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2023Trial
- Clinical research analysis of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Imaging of Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Updated Overview of Current and Emerging Applications.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2026Review
- 2[18F]-FDG-PET/CT and 2[18F]-FDG-PET/MRI in primary staging of epithelial ovarian cancer - an early interim analysis of a prospective clinical trial.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Inflammatory and Nutritional Biomarkers Predict Response to Neoadjuvant Dual Anti-HER2 Therapy in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Cancer management and research · 2026Article
- Case Report: Complete metabolic responses to trastuzumab-deruxtecan in HER2-altered solid tumors: two illustrative cases.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Matrix Metalloproteinases (MMPs) as Novel Prognostic Biomarkers to Predict Disease Progression, Survival Duration, and Recurrence Rate in Oral Cancer Patients.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2025Review
- New Approaches in Radiotherapy.Cancers · 2025Review
- Efficacy assessment in phase I clinical trials: endpoints and challenges.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2025Review
- The Correlation between Plasma Circulating Tumor DNA and Radiographic Tumor Burden.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2024Review
- The treatment response evaluation through the combination of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and squamous cell carcinoma antigen in cervical cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- From RECIST to PERCIST: navigating the landscape of tumor response assessment.European radiology · 2024Article
- CT-guided radioactiveBMC cancer · 2024Article
- Optimal Dosing and Patient Selection for Electrochemotherapy in Solid Abdominal Organ and Bone Tumors.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Comparison of Image Quality and Quantification Parameters between Q.Clear and OSEM Reconstruction Methods on FDG-PET/CT Images in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer.Journal of imaging · 2023Article
- Emerging role of quantitative imaging (radiomics) and artificial intelligence in precision oncology.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2023Review
- Case report and literature review: PET/CT in the evaluation of response to treatment of liver metastasis from colorectal cancer with DEBIRI-TACE.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) is a new method for the quantitative assessment of metabolic changes in solid tumors. The assessments of tumor response between the RECIST and PERCIST have shown considerable difference in several studies. This pooled study was conducted to compare tumor response according to the two criteria in patients with solid tumors. We surveyed MEDLINE, EMBASE and PUBMED for articles with terms of the RECIST or PERCIST from 2009 and January 2016. There were six articles comparing the RECIST and PERCIST. A total of 268 patients were recruited; 81 with colorectal cancer, 60 with lung cancer, 48 with esophageal cancer, 28 with breast cancer, 14 with basal cell carcinoma, 12 with stomach cancer, 10 with head and neck cancer, and 16 with other rare cancers. The agreement of tumor response between the RECIST and PERCIST was moderate (k = 0.590). Of 268 patients, 101 (37.7%) showed discordance in the tumor responses between two criteria. When adopting the PERCIST, tumor response was upgraded in 85 patients and downgraded in 16. The estimated overall response rates were significantly different between two criteria (35.1% by RECIST vs. 54.1% by PERCIST, P < 0.0001). In conclusion, this pooled analysis demonstrates that the concordance of tumor responses between the RECIST and PERCIST criteria is not excellent. The PERCIST might be more suitable for assessing tumor response than the RECIST criteria.
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.