ReviewDer Radiologe2017
[Radiological response assessment of modern immunotherapy using iRECIST].
Review in Der Radiologe, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- NeoPred: dual-phase CT AI forecasts pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy in NSCLC.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2025Article
- [Imaging in immunotherapy for tumor diseases].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Particular findings on lung CT in patients undergoing immunotherapy for bronchogenic carcinoma.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2020Article
- [Imaging in individualized uro-oncology].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2018Review
- Review
- [Malignant melanoma : Current status].Der Radiologe · 2017Review
- [Light at the end of the tunnel].Der Radiologe · 2017Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
clinical/methodical issueModern immunotherapies in oncology show tumor response patterns differing from conventional chemotherapies including initial pseudo-progression. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL
methodsResponse evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST 1.1) represent the currently most used response criteria for conventional chemotherapy of solid tumors. However, atypical response patterns of immunotherapies are not correctly classified using RECIST 1.1 so that the effectiveness is also incorrectly interpreted. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: In order to correctly interpret these atypical response patterns, special immune-related response criteria in solid tumors (iRECIST) have been published. In contrast to RECIST 1.1 according to iRECIST an initially unconfirmed progressive disease (iUPD) requires confirmation (iCPD) in clinically stable patients by subsequent control imaging after 4-8 weeks. New lesions are separately assessed within iRECIST. PERFORMANCE: The iRECIST procedure allows a standardized objective assessment of a possible pseudo-progression which can occur in up to 10% of cases depending on the immunomodulating drug and tumor entity. ACHIEVEMENTS: In principle, iRECIST was developed only for usage in trials testing modern immunotherapeutics. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: The iRECIST procedure might also be helpful as an additional objective response criterium for clinical treatment decisions, taking the limitations into account.
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.