ReviewOncology reviews2024
Tumor therapeutics in the era of "RECIST": past, current insights, and future prospects.
Review in Oncology reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- ESR Essentials: imaging of melanoma-practice recommendations by the European Society of Oncologic Imaging.European radiology · 2026Guideline
- Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Current therapeutic interventions to target cancer stem cells for metastasis.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Automated RECIST tumor response classification through prompt-guided large language models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The neuroimmune axis in breast cancer: from mechanistic insights to clinical applications.BMC medicine · 2026Review
- The potential directing role of chemokines for specific metastatic sites in breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Review
- A narrative review of pathologic response in non-small cell lung cancer: challenges, implications, and future directions.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Review
- The Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Monitoring Immunotherapy Response in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Current Evidence and Challenges: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence for multi-time-point arterial phase contrast-enhanced MRI profiling to predict prognosis after transarterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, advancements in medical treatment and imaging technologies have revolutionized the assessment of tumor response. However, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) has long been established as the gold standard for evaluating tumor treatment. As treatment modalities evolve, the need for continuous refinement and adaptation of RECIST becomes increasingly apparent. This review explores the historical evolution, current applications, limitations, and future directions of RECIST. It discusses the challenges of distinguishing true progression from pseudo-progression in ICIs (immune checkpoint inhibitors), the integration of advanced imaging tools, and the necessity for RECIST criteria tailored to specific therapies like neoadjuvant treatments. The review highlights the ongoing efforts to enhance RECIST's accuracy and reliability in clinical decision-making and the potential for developing new standards to better evaluate treatment efficacy in the rapidly evolving landscape of oncology.
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.