ReviewCancer medicine2025
Early Tumor Shrinkage and Depth of Response as Predictive Markers of Treatment Response and Prognosis in Solid Tumors.
Review in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on 'A study of oral metformin for the intravesical treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer'.BJU international · 2026Article
- From Semantic Modeling to Precision Radiotherapy: An AI Framework Linking Radiobiology, Oncology, and Public Health Integration.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Early Tumor Shrinkage and Depth of Response as Predictive Markers of Treatment Response and Prognosis in Solid Tumors.Cancer medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluation of tumor efficacy is central to cancer care. Progression-free survival (PFS) is widely used as an early surrogate for treatment effectiveness, but more timely and reliable biomarkers are needed. Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR) have emerged as promising predictors: ETS reflects early treatment sensitivity at first radiologic assessment, whereas DpR quantifies the maximum tumor reduction and may capture the durability of benefit.
methodsWe conducted a narrative synthesis of clinical studies assessing ETS and/or DpR across solid tumors, focusing on their definitions, measurement under RECIST, and associations with PFS and overall suvival (OS). We also summarized advances in imaging and multidimensional assessment framworks that could improve the accuracy and clinical utility of these indicators, and highlighted sources of heterogeneity and current gaps.
resultsAcross multiple retrospective and post-hoc analyses, ETS provides an early signal that identifies patients more likely to benefit from therapy and can inform treatment adaptation. DpR shows consisten correlations with long-term outcomes and complements PFS by reflecting the magnitude of tumor control. Both ETS and DpR demonstrate predictive value for PFS and OS; however, variability in cut-offs (e.g., ETS 20%-30%), timing of assessments, tumor types, and treatment modalities limits comparability. Emerging imaging technologies and composite response frameworks offer opportunities to enhance measurement precision and reproducibility.
conclusionsETS and DpR are promising, clinically interpretable markers for monitoring treatment effcacy and prognosis. Standardized definitons, prospective validation, and integration with molecular and imaging biomarkers (e.g., ctDNA, radiomics, and machine-learning-enhanced imaging) are needed to refine their application and solidify their role in routine cancer therapy monitoring.
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.