Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27995946›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2017

RECIST - learning from the past to build the future.

Saskia Litière, Sandra Collette, Elisabeth G E de Vries, Lesley Seymour, Jan Bogaerts

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

75 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Saskia LitièreEORTC Headquarters, Avenue E Mounier 83/11, 1200 Brussels, Belgium.
Sandra ColletteEORTC Headquarters, Avenue E Mounier 83/11, 1200 Brussels, Belgium.
Elisabeth G E de VriesDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein, 19713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Lesley SeymourCanadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen's University, 10 Stuart Street, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada.
Jan BogaertsEORTC Headquarters, Avenue E Mounier 83/11, 1200 Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) remain an integral part of the assessment of tumour burden in many clinical trials in oncology; these criteria are used to evaluate the activity and efficacy of new cancer therapeutics in solid tumours. We aim to define the purpose of RECIST, and reflect on the level of documentation needed to enable changes for these criteria to develop a new RECIST. Maintaining the applicability of RECIST as a standard evaluation approach is associated with many challenges, in particular with maintaining a balance between the specificity and generalizability, continued validation and innovation, and use of RECIST in early phase versus late-phase drug development, as well as its relevance in clinical trials versus clinical practice. Key questions relate to different modes of actions of new classes of treatments and new imaging modalities; thus, the RECIST Working Group remains committed to maintain RECIST as a standard for the oncology community.

Indexed as

Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsBiomarkers, TumorClinical Trials as TopicEndpoint DeterminationForecastingHumansNeoplasmsTumor BurdenBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID27995946

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.