scholarly journals P8‐182: Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) in adenocarcinoma lung patients who received EGFR‐TKI and chemotherapy in Adam Malik General Hospital Medan

Respirology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (S3) ◽  
pp. 359-359
Keyword(s):  
General Hospital ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Response Evaluation ◽  
Egfr Tki ◽  
Response Evaluation Criteria

Practical consensus recommendations - Current role of immune response evaluation criteria in solid tumors criteria in the management of cancer patients receiving immunotherapy

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 21-23
Author(s):  
Purvish M. Parikh ◽  
T. P. Sahoo ◽  
Randeep Singh ◽  
Bahl Ankur ◽  
Talvar Vineet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immune Response ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Response Evaluation ◽  
Consensus Recommendation ◽  
Current Role ◽  
New Class ◽  
Response Evaluation Criteria

Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) are a method used to evaluate and document the response to cancer treatment in solid tumors. The availability of a new class of immuneoncology drugs has resulted in the need to modify RECIST criteria methodology. The first leadership immuno-oncology network (LION) master course brought together experts in oncology and immuno-oncology. Six questions were put to the experts and their opinion, supporting evidence, and experience were discussed to arrive at a practical consensus recommendation. n this nascent field, the availability of a practical consensus recommendation developed by experts in the field is of immense value to the community oncologist and other health-care consultants.

Chemosaturation durch perkutane hepatische Perfusion mit Melphalan bei hepatisch metastasiertem Aderhautmelanom: eine Überlebens- und Sicherheitsanalyse

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (08) ◽  
pp. 576-584
Author(s):  
Cornelia Lieselotte Angelika Dewald ◽  
Jan B. Hinrichs ◽  
Lena Sophie Becker ◽  
Sabine Maschke ◽  
Timo C. Meine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Control ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Progressionsfreies Überleben ◽  
Response Evaluation ◽  
Ischämischer Insult ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Response Evaluation Criteria

Ziel Die Chemosaturation mittels perkutaner hepatischer Perfusion mit Melphalan (CS-PHP) ist ein palliatives Therapieverfahren für Patienten mit nicht kurativ behandelbaren Lebertumoren. Die CS-PHP erlaubt eine selektive intrahepatische Anreicherung von hochdosiertem Melphalan bei minimaler systemischer Toxizität durch venöse Hämofiltration. Ziel dieser Studie war es, das Ansprechen und Überleben sowie die Sicherheit der CS-PHP-Prozedur bei Patienten mit leberdominant metastasiertem Aderhautmelanom zu evaluieren. Material und Methoden Gesamtansprechrate (overall response rate, ORR) und Krankheitskontrollrate (disease control rate, DCR) wurden anhand von Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST1.1) ermittelt. Medianes Gesamtüberleben (mOS), medianes progressionsfreies Überleben (mPFS) und hepatisches mPFS (mhPFS) wurden mittels Kaplan-Meier-Schätzer ermittelt. Nebenwirkungen wurden entsprechend der einheitlichen Terminologie-Kriterien für Nebenwirkungen (CTCAE) v5 klassifiziert. Ergebnisse 30 Patienten wurden zwischen Oktober 2014 und Januar 2019 mit 70 Chemosaturationen behandelt. Die ORR betrug 42,3 % und die DCR 80,8 %. Das mOS betrug 12 (95 %-Konfidenzintervall (KI) 7–15) Monate, das mPFS 6 (95 %-KI 4–10) und das mhPFS ebenfalls 6 (95 %-KI 4–13) Monate. Signifikante, aber transiente hämatotoxische Nebenwirkungen waren häufig (87 % Grad-3/4-Thrombozytopenie), hepatische Toxizität bis Leberversagen (n = 1/70) sowie kardiovaskuläre Komplikationen (ischämischer Insult, n = 1/70) waren selten. Schlussfolgerung Das palliative Therapiekonzept der Chemosaturation ist bei Patienten mit hepatisch metastasiertem Aderhautmelanom effektiv. Die interventionelle Prozedur ist sicher, seltene, aber schwerwiegende kardiovaskuläre und hepatische Komplikationen erfordern eine sorgfältige Patientenselektion und intensive Aufmerksamkeit.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Optimal Number of Lesions Needed for Tumor Evaluation Using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group Investigation

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (19) ◽  
pp. 3205-3210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shauna L. Hillman ◽  
Ming-Wen An ◽  
Michael J. O'Connell ◽  
Richard M. Goldberg ◽  
Paul Schaefer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Group ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Response Evaluation ◽  
North Central ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Response Evaluation Criteria

Purpose In February 2000, the criteria for measuring tumor shrinkage as an indicator of antitumor activity were redefined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). This resulted in simplifying bidimensional to unidimensional measurement of lesions. Under RECIST, all lesions, up to 10, must be measured. Scanning and measuring multiple lesions is costly, time-consuming, and a disincentive to participation in clinical trials. We investigated whether fewer than 10 lesions can be measured without compromising the accuracy of assessing a regimen's activity. Patients and Methods Thirty-two North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials including 2,374 patients were analyzed. Twelve studies were conducted before RECIST; 20 were conducted post-RECIST. Agreement between objective status by cycle, confirmed response, overall response rate, and time to progression (TTP) was evaluated based on all 10 versus the largest one through five lesions. Results The median number of lesions reported on RECIST trials did not differ from pre-RECIST trials (median = 2.0). One lesion at baseline was reported in 49% of patients, two lesions in 28% of patients, three lesions in 12% of patients, four lesions in 6% of patients, and five lesions in 5% of patients in post-RECIST trials. Utilizing the largest two lesions produced excellent concordance with that using all lesions for all end points. In no trial did the overall response rate differ by more than 3% when two versus all lesions were considered. Evaluating more than two lesions did not significantly improve agreement. Conclusion Based on these trials, the assessment of more than two lesions did not alter the conclusions regarding a treatment's efficacy as judged by response rate or TTP.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document