Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28379322›Full record

GuidelineAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2017

International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017).

A Younes, P Hilden, B Coiffier, A Hagenbeek, G Salles, W Wilson, J F Seymour, K Kelly, J Gribben, M Pfreunschuh and 40 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readConsensus StatementPractice GuidelineReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03816683 (Treatment Patterns, Outcomes, and Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality of Life), which is not on this map. Cited by 188 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
188citing 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.

NCT03816683 completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Treatment Patterns, Outcomes, and Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality of Life: A Prospective Disease Registry of Patients With Mantle Cell Lymphoma Treated With Novel Agents

TypeobservationalSponsorAstraZenecaRan2019 to 2024Enrolled227ConditionsMantle Cell Lymphoma
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Propensity Score Analysis of Conditioning Intensity in Peripheral Blood Haploidentical Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2018
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

50 authors.

A YounesLymphoma Service.
P HildenBiostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
B CoiffierHematology, Université Lyon-1, Lyon-Sud Charles Mérieux, Lyon, France.
A HagenbeekAcademic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
G SallesHematology, Université Lyon-1, Lyon-Sud Charles Mérieux, Lyon, France.
W WilsonLymphoid Malignancies Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA.
J F SeymourPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre and University of Melbourne, Australia.
K KellyPediatrics Department, Roswell-Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, USA.
J GribbenDepartment of Haemato-Oncology, Barts Cancer Institute, London, UK.
M PfreunschuhDepartment of Internal Medicine, Universität des Saarlandes, Homburg, Germany.
F MorschhauserDepartment of Hematology, Université de Lille 2, Lille, France.
H SchoderDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
A D ZelenetzLymphoma Service.
J RademakerDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
R AdvaniDepartment of Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford.
N ValenteGenentech, San Francisco, USA.
C FortpiedStatistics, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium.
T E WitzigMayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
L H SehnBritish Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada.
A EngertDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
R I FisherFox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, USA.
P-L ZinzaniDepartment of Hematology, University of Bologna, Bologna.
M FedericoDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine, University of Modena, Modena, Italy.
M HutchingsDepartment of Hematology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
C BollardChildren's National Health System, Washington, USA.
M TrnenyLymphoma and Stem Cell Transplantation Program, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Y A ElsayedJanssen Research & Development, Spring House, USA.
K TobinaiDepartment of Hematology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
J S AbramsonMassachusetts General Hospital, Center for Lymphoma, Boston.
N FowlerU.T. M.D.Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
A GoyJohn Theurer Cancer Center, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack.
M SmithCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA.
S AnsellMayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
J KuruvillaDivision of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.
M DreylingMedicine Clinic III, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany.
C ThieblemontHaemato-Oncology, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France.
R F LittleDivisions of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA.
I AurerDepartment of Hematology, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
M H J Van OersAcademic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
K TakeshitaCelgene, Summit.
A GopalFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, USA.
S RuleHaematology Department, Plymouth University, UK.
S de VosOncology, UCLA, Los Angeles, USA.
I KloosServier, Neuilly sur Seine, France.
M S KaminskiUniversity of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, USA.
M MeignanNuclear Medicine, Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Créteil, France.
L H SchwartzColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York.
J P LeonardWeill Cornell Medicine and and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York.
S J SchusterUniversity of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, USA.
V E SeshanBiostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
The Role of Monocytes in non-Hodgkin LymphomaP50CA097274 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI LENTZ, STEVEN R · 2002 to 2021
$45.7M
Translating Stress Response Targeted Therapy for B-Cell LymphomasP50CA192937 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI DALLA-FAVERA, RICCARDO, ZELENETZ, ANDREW D. · 2016 to 2020
$10.9M
Phase I study of bortezomib and DA-EPOCH-R with microarray in DLBCLZIABC010717 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI WILSON, WYNDHAM H · 2009 to 2021
$1.7M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P50 CA097274NCI NIH HHS P50 CA192937
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, the number of approved and investigational agents that can be safely administered for the treatment of lymphoma patients for a prolonged period of time has substantially increased. Many of these novel agents are evaluated in early-phase clinical trials in patients with a wide range of malignancies, including solid tumors and lymphoma. Furthermore, with the advances in genome sequencing, new "basket" clinical trial designs have emerged that select patients based on the presence of specific genetic alterations across different types of solid tumors and lymphoma. The standard response criteria currently in use for lymphoma are the Lugano Criteria which are based on [18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography or bidimensional tumor measurements on computerized tomography scans. These differ from the RECIST criteria used in solid tumors, which use unidimensional measurements. The RECIL group hypothesized that single-dimension measurement could be used to assess response to therapy in lymphoma patients, producing results similar to the standard criteria. We tested this hypothesis by analyzing 47 828 imaging measurements from 2983 individual adult and pediatric lymphoma patients enrolled on 10 multicenter clinical trials and developed new lymphoma response criteria (RECIL 2017). We demonstrate that assessment of tumor burden in lymphoma clinical trials can use the sum of longest diameters of a maximum of three target lesions. Furthermore, we introduced a new provisional category of a minor response. We also clarified response assessment in patients receiving novel immune therapy and targeted agents that generate unique imaging situations.

Indexed as

Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsAntineoplastic AgentsConsensusContrast MediaDisease-Free SurvivalDisease ProgressionEndpoint DeterminationFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansLymphoma, Non-HodgkinNeoplasm StagingPositron-Emission TomographyPredictive Value of TestsTime FactorsTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic AgentsContrast MediaFluorodeoxyglucose F18FDG-PETimmunotherapylymphomaresponse criteriatargeted therapywaterfall plots

Identifiers

PMID28379322
PMCPMC5834038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.