2008
DOI: 10.1016/s1359-6349(08)71964-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

32 INVITED New response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: revised RECIST guideline version 1.1

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
337
1
8

Year Published

2011
2011
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 276 publications
(348 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
337
1
8
Order By: Relevance
“…PET scan response criteria were defined using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria for PET response assessment and the International Working Group criteria for response assessment in lymphoma [18][19][20].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PET scan response criteria were defined using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria for PET response assessment and the International Working Group criteria for response assessment in lymphoma [18][19][20].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…rhIL-2 was administered in the following five days. The clinical responses were defined according to RECIST1.1 and immune-related response criteria (Eisenhauer et al, 2009;Wolchok et al, 2009). Adverse events were documented and graded based upon the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4.0 (CTCAE 4.0).…”
Section: Conditioning Regimens and Infusion Of Car-t-egfr Cellsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…20,21 Complete response (CR) was defined as disappearance of all target lesions; partial response (PR) as at least a 30% decrease in the sum of diameters of target lesions; and progressive disease (PD) as at least a 20% increase in the sum of diameters of target lesions. Progressive disease was scored depending on whether it was intra-or extrahepatic.…”
Section: Study End Points and Follow-upmentioning
confidence: 99%