2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

81
17,932
10
196

Year Published

2010
2010
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23,678 publications
(18,219 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
81
17,932
10
196
Order By: Relevance
“…The treatment details are summarized in Table 2. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 guidelines25 were used to categorize patients into groups (i.e., progressive disease [PD], stable disease [SD], partial response [PR], or complete response [CR]) based on the 18 F‐fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18 F‐FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET)/CT, performed 3–6 months after treatment completion.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The treatment details are summarized in Table 2. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 guidelines25 were used to categorize patients into groups (i.e., progressive disease [PD], stable disease [SD], partial response [PR], or complete response [CR]) based on the 18 F‐fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18 F‐FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET)/CT, performed 3–6 months after treatment completion.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Response was assessed according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) guidelines 24, 25, 26, 27. In dogs with lymph node metastasis, lymph nodes were included in the response assessment.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Patients were administered a dose of 800 mg of pazopanib once daily that was reduced in case of intolerance. Treatment was stopped because of unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent for any reason, or disease progression (PD) assessed through RECIST 1.1 17. No dose interruptions were reported within the dataset despite the events listed above.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%