Responsekriterien bei malignem Melanom

Spiro, Judith; Maintz, David; Persigehl, Thorsten

doi:10.1007/s00117-014-2763-y

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2000, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.0) were proposed for evaluating treatment response [35], and a revised version was published in 2009 (RECIST 1.1) [36,37]. These criteria are now routinely used for the evaluation of treatment response in clinical CRC studies, and they may also make their way into clinical routine in the future management of CRC patients.…”

Section: Treatment Response Monitoring and Follow-upmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging Procedures for Colorectal Cancer

Baeßler¹,

Maintz²,

Persigehl³

2016

Visc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Radiological imaging plays an important role in the setting of staging, follow-up, and imaging-guided treatment of colorectal carcinoma (CRC). Methods: This review aims to summarize the current state of the art of the different radiological imaging procedures in CRC including an overview over recently published national and European guidelines and consensus statements concerning the imaging of CRC patients. Results and Conclusion: Radiological imaging is widely embedded in national and international guidelines, and structured reporting is recommended.

show abstract

Section: Treatment Response Monitoring and Follow-upmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging Procedures for Colorectal Cancer

Baeßler¹,

Maintz²,

Persigehl³

2016

Visc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(1) CT value: a decrease of more than 30 to 50 HU implies inactivation of cancer cells. Effective rate of tumor inactivation = (number of masses that show decrease of >30 HU in CT value) / (number of masses cryoablated) × 100%; (2) enhanced CT: no enhancement in local mass indicates effective cryoablation 36 ; (3) functional CT: reduction of tumor blood flow and blood volume indicates effective ablation 37 ; (4) RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) analysis 38 : ( a ) complete response: all masses disappear, or decrease in total maximum diameter of masses by more than 75%; ( b ) partial response: decrease in total maximum diameter of masses by more than 30%; ( c ) stable disease: decrease in total maximum diameter of masses by not more than 30% or increase by not more than 20%; ( d ) progressive disease: increase in total maximum diameter of masses by greater than 20%.…”

Section: Follow-up and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Cryosurgery of Pancreatic Cancer

Niu²,

Korpan³

et al. 2017

Pancreas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pancreatic cancer (PC), one of the most lethal malignancies, accounts for 8% to 10% of digestive system cancers, and the incidence is increasing. Surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy have been the main treatment methods but are not very effective. Cryosurgery was first used in 1984 for treatment of locally advanced PC and has since become a considerable treatment for most cases of unresectable PC. During the past decade, cryosurgery has been applied in some hospitals in China, and the newly developed technique of computed tomography– and/or ultrasound-guided percutaneous cryosurgery has shown better results than chemotherapy in cases of unresectable locally advanced PC, with the 1-year survival rate reported to be more than 50%. To develop standardized criteria for the application of cryosurgery in PC, the International Society of Cryosurgery and Asian Society of Cryosurgery assembled experts from Austria, Japan, and China to discuss treatment methods and arrive at a consensus on the indications, contraindications, and preferred techniques of PC cryosurgery.

show abstract

“…Все пациенты получали раннюю системную противоопухолевую терапию. Объективный ответ (ОR) оценивался согласно критериям систем RESIT 1.1 и irRC на 8-12-й нед после начала терапии и далее каждые 8-12 нед в течение лечения и после его окончания [10]. В соответствии с требованиями систем оценки подтверждение эффектов проводилось не ранее чем через 4 нед при выявлении полного или частичного регресса по системе RECIST 1.1 и при выявлении полного регресса, частичного регресса или прогрессирования по системе irRC.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

RECIST 1.1 AND irRC FOR RESPONSE ASSESMENT IN PATIENTS WITH DISSEMINATED CUTANEOUS MELANOMA TREATED WITH IPILIMUMAB OR DENDRITIC CELL VACCINE

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Special systems were developed for response assessment of immunooncology drugs. The role and benefits of particular system in assessing the efficacy of different immunotherapy methods are not clear yet. The objective of this study is to compare the responses on ipilimab (IPI) or dendritic cell vaccines (DCV) therapy by RECIST 1.1 and irRC criteria. Eighty two patients with unresectable disseminated or locally advanced stage III-IV melanoma were included. Fifty-five patients were treated with IPI and 27 – with DCV at the N.N. Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology from 2007 to 2016. Response by each system was compared to overall survival (OS). Response by both systems was a good marker for OS in IPI group (p=0,0001 for both systems) but not in DCV group (p=0,357 for RECIST and p=0,411 for irRC). Discrepancies in responses by different systems were detected in 5 patients in the IPI group and in 5 patients in the DCV group (p>0.05). The median of OS in IPI patients with PD by both systems was 8.8 mo. In case of mixed responses, (RECIST progression disease (PD) and irRC stable disease) OS in IPI group was 29.1+ mo, 16.7 mo. In the case of SD by RECIST and PD by irRC OS was 11.6+ mo. One patient with PD by RECIST and partial response by irRC lived 16.3 mo. OS in DCV group was 9.5+, 8.7, 15.3, 29.7 mo. in patients with mixed responses (PD+SD); 15,7 mo. in patient with SD by RECIST and PR by irRC. There was a trend to better overall survival of patients with PD according to the RECIST 1.1 and the absence of PD by irRC system in comparison with the PD by both systems in the treatment of IPI was revealed. In the DCV group the same pattern wasn’t found. Thus, both the RECIST 1.1 system and the irRC system are good surrogate markers for the overall survival. SD in patients receiving DCV cannot be considered a good response to therapy, since it does not improve the OS in comparison with patients who has PD by the same system. The irRC system allows to extract a subgroup of patients with better overall survival from patients with PD by RECIST among those who receive IPI but not DCV for systemic therapy of melanoma.

show abstract

Responsekriterien bei malignem Melanom

Cited by 10 publications

References 12 publications

Imaging Procedures for Colorectal Cancer

Imaging Procedures for Colorectal Cancer

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Cryosurgery of Pancreatic Cancer

RECIST 1.1 AND irRC FOR RESPONSE ASSESMENT IN PATIENTS WITH DISSEMINATED CUTANEOUS MELANOMA TREATED WITH IPILIMUMAB OR DENDRITIC CELL VACCINE

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About