ReviewTuberculosis and respiratory diseases2017
Response Evaluation of Chemotherapy for Lung Cancer.
Review in Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sequential tislelizumab plus bronchial arterial chemoembolization and systemic chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC with bulky tumors: efficacy and safety.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Imaging Follow-Up of Nonsurgical Therapies for Lung Cancer:AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2023Review
- New Targeted Therapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2023Article
- Use of amantadine in the evaluation of response to chemotherapy in lung cancer: a pilot study.Future science OA · 2021Article
- Plasma Heat Shock Protein 90 Alpha: A Valuable Predictor of Early Chemotherapy Effectiveness in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021Article
- Impact of Pulmonary Tuberculosis on the EGFR Mutational Status and Clinical Outcome in Patients with Lung Adenocarcinoma.Cancer research and treatment · 2019Article
- Pemetrexed Continuation Maintenance versus Conventional Platinum-Based Doublet Chemotherapy in EGFR-Negative Lung Adenocarcinoma: Retrospective Analysis.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessing response to therapy allows for prospective end point evaluation in clinical trials and serves as a guide to clinicians for making decisions. Recent prospective and randomized trials suggest the development of imaging techniques and introduction of new anti-cancer drugs. However, the revision of methods, or proposal of new methods to evaluate chemotherapeutic response, is not enough. This paper discusses the characteristics of the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumor (RECIST) version 1.1 suggested in 2009 and used widely by experts. It also contains information about possible dilemmas arising from the application of response assessment by the latest version of the response evaluation method, or recently introduced chemotherapeutic agents. Further data reveals the problems and limitations caused by applying the existing RECIST criteria to anti-cancer immune therapy, and the application of a new technique, immune related response criteria, for the response assessment of immune therapy. Lastly, the paper includes a newly developing response evaluation method and suggests its developmental direction.
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.