ArticleChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu2016
Tumor response assessment by the single-lesion measurement per organ in small cell lung cancer.
Article in Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inflammatory-Molecular Clusters as Predictors of Immunotherapy Response in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the tumor response assessment of modified-RECIST 1.1 in advance non-small cell lung cancer: aTranslational lung cancer research · 2025Article
- Tumor response assessment by measuring the single largest lesion per organ in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor.Therapeutic advances in medical 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe criterion of two target lesions per organ in the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 is an arbitrary one, being supported by no objective evidence. The optimal number of target lesions per organ still needs to be investigated. We compared tumor responses using the RECIST 1.1 (measuring two target lesions per organ) and modified RECIST 1.1 (measuring the single largest lesion in each organ) in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC).
methodsWe reviewed medical records of patients with SCLC who received first-line treatment between January 2004 and December 2014 and compared tumor responses according to the two criteria using computed tomography.
resultsThere were a total of 34 patients who had at least two target lesions in any organ according to the RECIST 1.1 during the study period. The differences in the percentage changes of the sum of tumor measurements between RECIST 1.1 and modified RECIST 1.1 were all within 13%. Seven patients showed complete response and fourteen showed partial response according to the RECIST 1.1. The overall response rate was 61.8%. When assessing with the modified RECIST 1.1 instead of the RECIST 1.1, tumor responses showed perfect concordance between the two criteria (k=1.0).
conclusionsThe modified RECIST 1.1 showed perfect agreement with the original RECIST 1.1 in the assessment of tumor response of SCLC. Our result suggests that it may be enough to measure the single largest target lesion per organ for evaluating tumor response.
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.