Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36387133›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2022

Tumor response assessment on imaging following immunotherapy.

Antonia M Berz, Clarisse Dromain, Naïk Vietti-Violi, Sarah Boughdad, Rafael Duran

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Beyond target lesions: Prognostic value of longitudinal AI-derived whole-body [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Imaging Immunotherapy.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Utility of [Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Antonia M BerzDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Clarisse DromainDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Naïk Vietti-VioliDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Sarah BoughdadDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Rafael DuranDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
University of Lausanne · CHHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, various systemic immunotherapies have been developed for cancer treatment, such as monoclonal antibodies (mABs) directed against immune checkpoints (immune checkpoint inhibitors, ICIs), oncolytic viruses, cytokines, cancer vaccines, and adoptive cell transfer. While being estimated to be eligible in 38.5% of patients with metastatic solid or hematological tumors, ICIs, in particular, demonstrate durable disease control across many oncologic diseases (e.g., in melanoma, lung, bladder, renal, head, and neck cancers) and overall survival benefits. Due to their unique mechanisms of action based on T-cell activation, response to immunotherapies is characterized by different patterns, such as progression prior to treatment response (pseudoprogression), hyperprogression, and dissociated responses following treatment. Because these features are not encountered in the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), which is the standard for response assessment in oncology, new criteria were defined for immunotherapies. The most important changes in these new morphologic criteria are, firstly, the requirement for confirmatory imaging examinations in case of progression, and secondly, the appearance of new lesions is not necessarily considered a progressive disease. Until today, five morphologic (immune-related response criteria (irRC), immune-related RECIST (irRECIST), immune RECIST (iRECIST), immune-modified RECIST (imRECIST), and intra-tumoral RECIST (itRECIST)) criteria have been developed to accurately assess changes in target lesion sizes, taking into account the specific response patterns after immunotherapy. In addition to morphologic response criteria, 2-deoxy-2-[

Indexed as

immune checkpoint inhibitorimmunotherapyimRECISTiPERCISTiRECISTPERCIMTpseudoprogressiontumor response

Identifiers

PMID36387133
PMCPMC9641095
OpenAlexW4307372250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.