Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30718844›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2019

The beginning of the end for conventional RECIST - novel therapies require novel imaging approaches.

Mirjam Gerwing, Ken Herrmann, Anne Helfen, Christoph Schliemann, Wolfgang E Berdel, Michel Eisenblätter, Moritz Wildgruber

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 130 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Assessment of the sensitivity ofNMR in biomedicine · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

3 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mirjam GerwingInstitute of Clinical Radiology, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Ken HerrmannDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Anne HelfenInstitute of Clinical Radiology, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Christoph SchliemannDepartment of Medicine A, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Wolfgang E BerdelDepartment of Medicine A, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Michel EisenblätterInstitute of Clinical Radiology, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Moritz WildgruberInstitute of Clinical Radiology, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany. moritz.wildgruber@ukmuenster.de.
University Hospital Münster · DEEssen University Hospital · DEKing's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Owing to improvements in our understanding of the biological principles of tumour initiation and progression, a wide variety of novel targeted therapies have been developed. Developments in biomedical imaging, however, have not kept pace with these improvements and are still mainly designed to determine lesion size alone, which is reflected in the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Imaging approaches currently used for the evaluation of treatment responses in patients with solid tumours, therefore, often fail to detect successful responses to novel targeted agents and might even falsely suggest disease progression, a scenario known as pseudoprogression. The ability to differentiate between responders and nonresponders early in the course of treatment is essential to allowing the early adjustment of treatment regimens. Various imaging approaches targeting a single dedicated tumour feature, as described in the hallmarks of cancer, have been successful in preclinical investigations, and some have been evaluated in pilot clinical trials. However, these approaches have largely not been implemented in clinical practice. In this Review, we describe current biomedical imaging approaches used to monitor responses to treatment in patients receiving novel targeted therapies, including a summary of the most promising future approaches and how these might improve clinical practice.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDisease ProgressionHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedNeoplasmsResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30718844
OpenAlexW2912828513

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.