Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39543673›Full record

ReviewCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2024

A call for objectivity: Radiologists' proposed wishlist for response evaluation in solid tumors (RECIST 1.1).

Kathleen Ruchalski, Jordan M Anaokar, Matthias R Benz, Rohit Dewan, Michael L Douek, Jonathan G Goldin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

6 authors.

Kathleen RuchalskiDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA. kruchalski@mednet.ucla.edu.
Jordan M AnaokarDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA.
Matthias R BenzDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA.
Rohit DewanDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA.
Michael L DouekDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA.
Jonathan G GoldinDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Response Evaluation in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 provides key guidance for performing imaging response assessment and defines image-based outcome metrics in oncology clinical trials, including progression free survival. In this framework, tumors identified on imaging are designated as either target lesions, non-target disease or new lesions and a structured categorical response is assigned at each imaging time point. While RECIST provides definitions for these categories, it specifically and objectively defines only the target disease. Predefined thresholds of size change provide unbiased metrics for determining objective response and disease progression of the target lesions. However, worsening of non-target disease or emergence of new lesions is given the same importance in determining disease progression despite these being qualitatively assessed and less rigorously defined. The subjective assessment of non-target and new disease contributes to reader variability, which can impact the quality of image interpretation and even the determination of progression free survival. The RECIST Working Group has made significant efforts in developing RECIST 1.1 beyond its initial publication, particularly in its application to targeted agents and immunotherapy. A review of the literature highlights that the Working Group has occasionally employed or adopted objective measures for assessing non-target and new lesions in their evaluation of RECIST-based outcome measures. Perhaps a prospective evaluation of these more objective definitions for non-target and new lesions within the framework of RECIST 1.1 might improve reader interpretation. Ideally, these changes could also better align with clinically meaningful outcome measures of patient survival or quality of life.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsDisease ProgressionHumansProgression-Free SurvivalRadiologistsBiomarkers, TumorClinical trialDisease progressionProgression free survival.RECIST

Identifiers

PMID39543673
PMCPMC11566494

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.