ライフサイエンスコーパス: RECIST

1 RECIST 1.1 criteria (assessing a maximum of 5 tumor foci

2 RECIST criteria may show progression of tumor more slowl

3 RECIST did not correlate with survival in either the sur

4 RECIST is used to quantify tumor changes during exposure

5 RECIST ORR was 11.8% versus 27.3%, respectively (P = .00

6 RECIST quantification of response correlates with surviv

7 RECIST, mRECIST, and EASL stratification was short of si

8 RECIST, mRECIST, EASL, and AFP response criteria were de

9 RECIST-assessed ORRs were 25%, 31%, and 18% for olaparib

10 ponse occurred in 5.9% (WHO criteria), 2.0% (RECIST), 25.5% (mRECIST), and 23.5% (EASL criteria) of p

11 ation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) in patients with advanced melanoma treated

12 uation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) or death due to any cause, and was analysed

13 uation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), adequate haematological and end-organ func

14 uation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), and adequate haematological and end-organ

15 uation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), tumour biopsy or archival sample for bioma

16 uation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (exc

17 herapeutic response of Ewing sarcoma than 1D RECIST or 2D WHO measurements and show a significantly h

18 nt magnetic resonance images according to 1D RECIST, 2D WHO, and 3D COG measurements.

19 not be predicted by WHO (P = 0.25 and 0.62), RECIST (P = 0.35 and 0.54), EASL (P = 0.49 and 0.46), mR

20 A RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) re

21 Three patients (9%) had a RECIST investigator-assessed, confirmed partial response

22 st dose of nivolumab more than 6 weeks after RECIST-defined progression, and patients not treated bey

23 All RECIST responses were in patients receiving combination

24 t change after treatment, WHO (P = 0.06) and RECIST (P = 0.08) response at 1 month failed to reach si

25 ial: absolute changes, relative changes, and RECIST.

26 radiologist assessed response using Choi and RECIST.

27 Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria and RECIST 1.1.

28 se determined using morphologic criteria and RECIST was correlated with pathologic response in resect

29 EpSSG guidelines and RECIST are not interchangeable; neither technique demons

30 Comparison of EpSSG guidelines and RECIST resulted in 13 discrepant response classification

31 t between observers for EpSSG guidelines and RECIST was moderate (kappa = 0.565 and 0.592, respective

32 Response was assessed centrally per irRC and RECIST v1.1.

33 whereas changes in SUV(peak) or SUV(max) and RECIST 1.1 criteria did not predict survival.

34 The response rate between mRECIST and RECIST 1.1 was compared.

35 n PET parameters, overall survival (OS), and RECIST-based treatment response were tested by Cox and l

36 alkaline phosphatase, and subsequent PSA and RECIST response.

37 ith OS, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and RECIST response using Cox regression as well as receiver

38 ation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and RECIST 1.1.

39 maging alone using standard WHO, RECIST, and RECIST 1.1 criteria have limitations, particularly in as

40 maging alone using standard WHO, RECIST, and RECIST 1.1 criteria is widely applied but still has limi

41 nterval [CI], 0.80-0.92) between the WHO and RECIST guidelines, 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16-0.33) between RECI

42 gression discontinued nivolumab before or at RECIST-defined progression.

43 Semi-automated RECIST measurements were available to clinicians online

44 fic correlation with conventional size-based RECIST criteria, and it was superior to RECIST in predic

45 Twelve studies were conducted before RECIST; 20 were conducted post-RECIST.

46 guidelines, 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16-0.33) between RECIST and EASL, and 0.28 (95% CI, 0.19-0.36) between WH

47 ically significant difference in PFS between RECIST nonresponders (n = 255) and responders (n = 20; H

48 ake the assessment of disease outcome beyond RECIST and could provide an important impact to the fiel

49 d judged to be eligible for treatment beyond RECIST v1.1-defined progression by the treating investig

50 n of patients who continued treatment beyond RECIST-defined first progression demonstrated sustained

51 In patients meeting both RECIST and CA-125 criteria, the ORR was 64% (seven CRs a

52 ifying PET responders versus 52% and 100% by RECIST.

53 Clinical activity (by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors]),

54 Tumor burden was assessed by RECIST (version 1.0) after each cycle.

55 " changes in soft-tissue disease assessed by RECIST, and pain using validated scales.

56 One patient achieved a PR in the brain by RECIST (objective response rate 2.6%, 95% conditional CI

57 motherapy that is not adequately captured by RECIST in these large heterogeneous tumors.

58 ted with nonresponse to chemoradiotherapy by RECIST and with poorer prognosis.

59 of objective response rate (ORR), defined by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).

60 verall tumor response rate (ORR), defined by RECIST.

61 h advanced WD/DDLS and measurable disease by RECIST 1.1 were enrolled from December 2011 to January 2

62 d seven other patients had stable disease by RECIST criteria.

63 The presence of measurable disease by RECIST, the sum of nodule diameters greater than or equa

64 er magnitude (36/44) than that documented by RECIST (2/39).

65 Among 50 patients evaluable by RECIST, the best response was one partial response (PR)

66 Response was evaluated by RECIST v1.1 and Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup criteria.

67 Responses were evaluated by RECIST.

68 rogressive disease (PD) of irradiated HCC by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).

69 d point was objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST (version 1.0).

70 point was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST.

71 point was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST; secondary end points were objective response rat

72 tion of patients with disease progression by RECIST criteria within 7 months of study entry.

73 ary end point was objective response rate by RECIST v1.0; secondary end points included clinical bene

74 The overall response rate by RECIST was 26% (complete response [CR], n = 8; partial r

75 Response rates by RECIST: partial response (PR) 21% (17/82), stable diseas

76 failure to achieve an objective response by RECIST (negative predictive value, 91% [95% CI, 74% to 1

77 e, none experienced an objective response by RECIST (version 1.1); however, 17 (33%) showed durable (

78 Response by RECIST 1.1 was seen in a small group of patients (n = 22

79 le > 6 months [n = 7] or partial response by RECIST criteria [n = 3]) was 26.3% (95% CI, 13.4% to 43.

80 assessment was objective tumor response (by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors]).

81 Partial responses (by RECIST) were reported in eight (27%) of 30 patients with

82 associations between change in tumor size by RECIST and survival (P = 4.5 x 10(-6) to < 1 x 10(-8)).

83 esponse, or stable disease (>/= 16 weeks) by RECIST 1.0 criteria.

84 and every six cycles, that is, 18 weeks, by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) ve

85 udy, the mean tumor size was 5.3 +/- 3.4 cm (RECIST) in the mastectomy group and 3.2 +/- 1.6 cm in th

86 Based on survival analysis, conventional RECIST might underestimate the benefit of pembrolizumab

87 d with complete pathological necrosis (CPN) (RECIST: P = 0.07; WHO: P = 0.05).

88 According to CT RECIST at 12 weeks, there were 21 nonresponders and 11 r

89 The association between metabolic and CT/RECIST and pathologic response was tested with the McNem

90 predictive value for PFS and OS than both CT/RECIST and pathologic response at multivariate analysis,

91 redictive ability was higher than that of CT/RECIST response after 3 mo of treatment.

92 The predictive value of CT/RECIST response was not significant at multivariate anal

93 tumors to support our position that current RECIST thresholds should be retained.

94 The largest area (WHO), longest diameter (RECIST), longest enhancing diameter (mRECIST), largest e

95 ger association with tumor response than did RECIST, EASL criteria, or mRECIST.

96 ib or erlotinib, and had assessable disease (RECIST 1.1) and tumour tissue samples for translational

97 prior BRAFi monotherapy, measurable disease (RECIST 1.1), and tumor accessible for biopsy.

98 .008 vs P = .267, P = .053, and P = .042 for RECIST, Choi, and modified Choi criteria, respectively).

99 r treatment predicted outcome (P = 0.086 for RECIST; P = 0.310 for change in SUV(peak); P = 0.155 for

100 -0.57) for WHO, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.24-0.58) for RECIST, and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.22-0.64) for EASL.

101 cording to surface measurements derived from RECIST criteria.

102 A2 mutation carriers with ovarian cancer had RECIST partial responses, as did two (50% [7-93]) of fou

103 D, 70%) and a 64% clinical benefit rate (ie, RECIST complete response + PR + SD >/= 6 months).

104 nctional MR was superior to current imaging (RECIST, mRECIST, and EASL) and biochemical (AFP level) r

105 lizumab resulted in a significantly improved RECIST v1.1 objective response rate for each prespecifie

106 sessing a maximum of 5 tumor foci, vs. 10 in RECIST) result in a higher complete response rate than t

107 tients (40%; P = .48), with no difference in RECIST response: BB, 5.9% versus LCB, 6.0% (difference,

108 Additional end points included RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) re

109 Two decades later, RECIST was advanced to streamline WHO and improve its re

110 A125) responses, and three (6.0%) maintained RECIST disease stabilization for more than 4 months, giv

111 Lesions that fail to meet RECIST size criteria (ie, those < 10 mm) at diagnosis ma

112 Each response assessment method (RECIST, mRECIST, EASL, and 3D methods of volumetric RECI

113 iteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST as end points.

114 ECIST) version 1.1 for NSCLC and by modified RECIST criteria for MPM.

115 rrent study, RECIST, SWOG criteria, modified RECIST (mRECIST), and modified SWOG (mSWOG) criteria wer

116 e response rate according to immune-modified RECIST, analysed by intention to treat.

117 Best response at 4 months (modified RECIST) was stable disease: 12 of 23 (52%) in the ADI-PE

118 Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), modified RECIST (mRECIST), and European Association for the Study

119 Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), modified RECIST (mRECIST), and European Association for the Study

120 ) on PFS and substantial effects of mRECIST, RECIST, and EASL criteria (.05 < P < .1).

121 However, neither RECIST 1.1 criteria nor changes in SUV(peak) or SUV(max)

122 Compared with nonresponders, RECIST responders showed lower coarseness (mean, 0.012 v

123 n for 1D and 2D measurements on the basis of RECIST and COG therapeutic response thresholds (concorda

124 of reference (tumor volume) on the basis of RECIST, COG, and WHO therapeutic response thresholds.

125 We discuss multiple limitations of RECIST, including its overemphasis on tumor regression,

126 The uni- and bidimensional measurements of RECIST (hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]:

127 clines of > or = 30% and > or = 90%; rate of RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) re

128 On RECIST progression, FOLFOX plus cetuximab or FOLFOX was

129 free survival (PFS) rate, which was based on RECIST, version 1.1.

130 lts The median number of lesions reported on RECIST trials did not differ from pre-RECIST trials (med

131 A response (>/=50% decline from baseline) or RECIST response.

132 IST) version 1.0 for pleural mesothelioma or RECIST version 1.1 for peritoneal mesothelioma.

133 her complete response rate than the original RECIST criteria, at least in lymph nodes.

134 ential, but not convincing, improvement over RECIST to predict overall survival (OS).

135 /= 30% reduction in longest dimension as per RECIST, >/= 50% reduction in volume as per INRC, or >/=

136 Response was assessed per RECIST v1.1 by independent central review at week 12, th

137 achieving an objective response assessed per RECIST version 1.1 by independent central review and ove

138 ssessment was performed every two cycles per RECIST 1.1.

139 Those with stable disease per RECIST at 12 weeks were randomly assigned to cabozantini

140 .5% in patients with progressive disease per RECIST v1.1 but nonprogressive disease per irRC (n = 84)

141 84 (14%) experienced progressive disease per RECIST v1.1 but nonprogressive disease per irRC.

142 ligible patients had measurable disease (per RECIST version 1.1) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology

143 (TTP) and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1.

144 mit treatment beyond initial progression per RECIST v1.1 might prevent premature cessation of treatme

145 a partial response or complete response per RECIST criteria.

146 ducted before RECIST; 20 were conducted post-RECIST.

147 , and five lesions in 5% of patients in post-RECIST trials.

148 ted on RECIST trials did not differ from pre-RECIST trials (median = 2.0).

149 xity nor any of the SUV parameters predicted RECIST response.

150 ADC change relative to baseline (ADC ratio), RECIST, EASL criteria, and mRECIST.

151 While we recognize RECIST is far from perfect-in need of modification as a

152 o assess inter-observer agreement of revised RECIST criteria (version 1.1) for computed tomography as

153 Standard RECIST cut points demonstrated predictive ability simila

154 Standard RECIST response was assessed with CT after 3 mo of treat

155 In the current study, RECIST, SWOG criteria, modified RECIST (mRECIST), and mo

156 d searches, including searches for the terms RECIST, positron, WHO, FDG, cancer (including specific t

157 nge metrics are not meaningfully better than RECIST in predicting OS.

158 ed a significantly higher response rate than RECIST (40.8% versus 3.9%; P = 0.025).

159 ive value and negative predictive value than RECIST in five of six treatment comparisons and lower pr

160 The RECIST 1.1 response rate for both ipilimumab-refractory

161 Although the RECIST RR of 11% did not exceed prespecified estimates f

162 of therapeutic response was high between the RECIST and WHO guidelines but low between each of these

163 ensus guideline-iRECIST-was developed by the RECIST working group for the use of modified Response Ev

164 This was the only arm to meet the RECIST response rate primary end point.

165 s was performed by 2 observers, based on the RECIST criteria (version 1.1).

166 Prior to first progression, the RECIST-defined objective response rate was 14% (5 patien

167 ts), for which 30% and 20% correspond to the RECIST categorization.

168 metastases of breast cancer according to the RECIST criteria (version 1.1).

169 the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria.

170 icacy thresholds established by WHO and then RECIST have proved their worth, and we summarize 10 year

171 Three RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) -d

172 lesion SUVmax and best response according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), t

173 Responses were evaluated according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).

174 primary end point was response according to RECIST 1.0 (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors

175 eover, in lesion-based analysis according to RECIST 1.1 there was no association of tumor response wi

176 ) achieved objective responses (according to RECIST [version 1.0]), with median response duration of

177 According to RECIST criteria, 6 months after TACE, 30 HCC lesions sho

178 cal outcomes compared with that according to RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors or o

179 Response according to RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was

180 ssessed objective response rate according to RECIST v1.1 and the investigator-assessed objective resp

181 ents underwent tumor assessment according to RECIST v1.1 every 8 weeks.

182 e or partial response) assessed according to RECIST version 1.1 by an independent review committee.

183 onfirmed best overall response (according to RECIST version 1.1), adjudicated by independent review.

184 ad an objective tumour response according to RECIST version 1.1, assessed for all the treated patient

185 The best response according to RECIST was 2 with partial response, 36 with stable disea

186 llow-up (EoS), and was assessed according to RECIST.

187 8%, 49%, and 24%, respectively, according to RECIST; 25%, 49%, and 26%, respectively, according to SW

188 rafenib by Choi (29%) was higher compared to RECIST (4%).

189 line in SUV for "response," and deferring to RECIST 1.1 in cases that do not have (18)F-FDG avidity o

190 Alternative cut points to RECIST standards provided no meaningful improvement in O

191 ased RECIST criteria, and it was superior to RECIST in predicting major pathologic response.

192 Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST) measurable disease and evidence of progression o

193 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1).

194 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1).

195 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST version 1.1) during or after treatment with trast

196 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) (target hazard ratio, 0.60).

197 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) (unidimensional), Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG

198 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) (unidimensional), World Health Organization (WHO

199 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) -assessed progression-free survival (PFS).

200 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) -defined objective response rate.

201 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 criteria at 2 years for HCC patients, with t

202 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 was 13.5%, median progression-free survival

203 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 guidelines, and the CT images obtained after

204 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1.

205 esponse evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) and 2 confirmed PSA responses.

206 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and iodine-123 ((123)I) -metaiodobenzylguanidine

207 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST as end points.

208 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and survival rates were evaluated.

209 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and survival were evaluated.

210 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) assessments.

211 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) at 12 wk.

212 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) complete or partial responses and/or tumor marke

213 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) confirmed response rate was 1.9%, with four pati

214 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria, and changes in Eastern Cooperative Onc

215 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria.

216 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) for measurable metastatic disease.

217 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines and a novel alternate method in which

218 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) on CT images obtained at 12 weeks (n = 32).

219 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) or bone lesions in the absence of measurable dis

220 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) or elevated CA-125 (> 70 U/mL) in patients witho

221 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) require measurement in one dimension.

222 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) response.

223 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) showed response in three patients (5%).

224 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) system.

225 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 by independent central review.

226 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1-defined progression.

227 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0 for pleural mesothelioma or RECIST v

228 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 for NSCLC and by modified RECIST cri

229 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 guidelines.

230 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 in the full analysis population (all

231 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 was used.

232 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, adequate haematological, hepatic, a

233 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, had adequate organ function, had re

234 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) was observed, 25 further patients with that sarc

235 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), >/= 4 months was observed in 14 patients, with

236 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and emerging trial data.

237 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and RECIST 1.1.

238 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and two-dimensional (2D) measurements defined b

239 esponse evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST), as well as Choi and modified Choi criteria.

240 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), but these standards correlate poorly with sarco

241 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), modified RECIST (mRECIST), and European Associa

242 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), modified RECIST (mRECIST), and European Associa

243 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), physical examination, or both.

244 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), positron emission tomography tracer uptake ([(1

245 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, was 38% (95% confidence interval [

246 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1.

247 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), were developed to assess tumor shrinkage after

248 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-defined first progression.

249 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

250 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

251 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

252 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

253 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

254 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

255 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

256 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

257 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

258 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

259 sponse Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors (RECIST).

260 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST); Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance

261 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1) by independent central review.

262 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1).

263 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; >/= 20% increase).

264 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1).

265 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] or modified Gynecological Cancer Intergroup CA-1

266 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] or WHO) while on continuous treatment with gefit

267 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1), and progression-free survival (PFS

268 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1), as assessed by a masked, independe

269 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1), progression-free survival, overall

270 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST]), and seven patients responded to CD8(+)-enriche

271 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST], version 1.1) previously treated with one or two

272 sponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1) in cancer immunotherapy trials, to e

273 sponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours [RECIST]) in evaluable patients who received at least one

274 Under RECIST, all lesions, up to 10, must be measured.

275 All trials used RECIST or WHO radiographic response criteria and the pri

276 Using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) 1.

277 95% confidence interval [CI], 43%-71%) using RECIST 1.1 (17/34 responders in the (18)F-FMISO-positive

278 CT or MR imaging scans were analyzed using RECIST, SWOG criteria, mRECIST, and mSWOG criteria (incl

279 Response was assessed using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) an

280 scans 3 mo after therapy, as assessed using RECIST, version 1.1.

281 9, and week 18 for clinical assessment using RECIST.

282 , were evaluated for tumor response by using RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1,

283 Best response was assessed locally using RECIST (version 1.1).

284 Response was assessed every 2 months using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).

285 remissions, one partial response (PR) using RECIST criteria (two PRs using immune-related response c

286 done at week 4 and then every 8 weeks using RECIST 1.1.

287 esponse correlates with survival, validating RECIST's use in phase I trials.

288 mRECIST, EASL, and 3D methods of volumetric RECIST [vRECIST] and quantitative EASL [qEASL]) was used

289 een groups A and B at 1 and 3 months by WHO, RECIST, EASL, mRECIST or ADC measurements.

290 Size (WHO, RECIST), enhancement (EASL, mRECIST) and diffusion-weigh

291 Anatomic imaging alone using standard WHO, RECIST, and RECIST 1.1 criteria have limitations, partic

292 Anatomic imaging alone using standard WHO, RECIST, and RECIST 1.1 criteria is widely applied but st

293 Response was assessed with WHO, RECIST, mRECIST, and EASL methods according to their res

294 With RECIST, the median (IQR) percentages of residual tumor c

295 ith mRECIST and EASL criteria and 66.7% with RECIST.

296 ld therefore be evaluated in accordance with RECIST criteria, using the single longest dimension.

297 sion in a minority of patients compared with RECIST.

298 ificantly higher response rate compared with RECIST; it also demonstrates acceptable intra- and inter

299 In patients evaluated with RECIST only, the ORR was 45% (one CR and four PR of 11 p

300 were seen in four (18%) of 22 patients with RECIST-evaluable target lesions.