ReviewCancer2025
The legend of the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: A historical overview.
Review in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improved early response assessment of chemoimmunotherapy efficacy byEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Review
- The Impact of Microsatellite Instability and CD8+ Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes on Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response in Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Observational Study.Cancer management and research · 2026Article
- Delta-Radiomics Biomarker in Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases Treated with Cetuximab Plus Avelumab (CAVE Trial).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
methodsIn this review, the historical development of tumor response criteria is examined and an interview was conducted with one of the original researchers behind the original study. This study, published nearly five decades ago, assessed tumor size through palpation and measurements of simulated tumor masses ("balls under mattresses"). The methodology used in that early study as well as in subsequent research that has influenced modifications of the current response evaluation criteria was critically evaluated.
resultsThe current tumor response criteria trace back to a 1976 study by Moertel and Hanley, which relied on palpation to measure tumor size. The key outcome, a 50% reduction in the product of the longest perpendicular diameters of the most measurable tumor mass, formed the basis for later criteria. The World Health Organization criteria adopted these thresholds for response and introduced a 25% increase as a cutoff for progression. Later, unidimensional measurements replaced two-dimensional ones, with adjusted thresholds accordingly. These criteria further inspired the development of specialized response criteria such as Choi, mRECIST, and PERCIST.
conclusionBy analyzing the evolution of RECIST, it is highlighted that these criteria are not fixed standards but rather the product of a series of pragmatic choices and compromises rooted in their historical context. With advances in technology, including artificial intelligence and volumetric imaging, it is timely to reassess the reliability of current criteria and explore new approaches to tumor response evaluation.
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.