• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>AJR: American Journal of Roentgenology : Including Diagnostic Radiology, Radiation Oncology, Nuclear Medicine, Ultrasonography and Related Basic Sciences >New Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: comparison with original RECIST and impact on assessment of tumor response to targeted therapy.
【24h】

New Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: comparison with original RECIST and impact on assessment of tumor response to targeted therapy.

机译：晚期非小细胞肺癌新的实体瘤反应评估标准（RECIST）指南：与原始RECIST的比较及其对靶向治疗肿瘤反应评估的影响。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to compare the recently published revised Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines (version 1.1) to the original guidelines (RECIST 1.0) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after erlotinib therapy and to evaluate the impact of the new CT tumor measurement guideline on response assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-three chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC treated with erlotinib in a single-arm phase 2 multicenter open-label clinical trial were retrospectively studied. CT tumor measurement records using RECIST 1.0 that were generated as part of the prospective clinical trial were reviewed. A second set of CT tumor measurements was generated from the records to meet RECIST 1.1 guidelines. The number of target lesions, best response, and time to progression were compared between RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0. RESULTS: The number of target lesions according to RECIST 1.1 decreased in 22 patients (51%) and did not change in 21 patients (49%) compared with the number according to RECIST 1.0 (p < 0.0001, paired Student's t test). Almost perfect agreement was observed between best responses using RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 (weighted kappa = 0.905). Two patients with stable disease according to RECIST 1.0 had progressive disease according to RECIST 1.1 criteria because of new lesions found on PET/CT. There was no significant difference in time to progression between RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 (p = 1.000, sign test). CONCLUSION: RECIST 1.1 provided almost perfect agreement in response assessment after erlotinib therapy compared with RECIST 1.0. Assessment with PET/CT was a major factor that influenced the difference in best response assessment between RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0.
机译：目的：比较厄洛替尼治疗后的晚期非小细胞肺癌（NSCLC）的最新发布的修订版《实体瘤反应评估标准》（RECIST）指南（1.1版）和原始指南（RECIST 1.0）并评估新的CT肿瘤测量指南对反应评估的影响。材料与方法：回顾性研究了单组2期多中心开放标签临床试验中接受厄洛替尼治疗的43例单纯化疗的晚期NSCLC患者。审查了使用RECIST 1.0的CT肿瘤测量记录，这些记录是作为前瞻性临床试验的一部分生成的。从记录中生成第二组CT肿瘤测量结果，以符合RECIST 1.1指南。在RECIST 1.1和RECIST 1.0之间比较了目标病变的数量，最佳反应和进展时间。结果：与RECIST 1.0相比，根据RECIST 1.1的目标病变数目减少了22例（51％），而21例（49％）则没有变化（p <0.0001，配对的t检验）。在使用RECIST 1.1和RECIST 1.0的最佳响应之间观察到几乎完美的一致性（加权kappa = 0.905）。两名符合RECIST 1.0的疾病稳定的患者因RECIST 1.1标准而患有进行性疾病，因为在PET / CT上发现了新的病变。 RECIST 1.1和RECIST 1.0之间的进展时间没有显着差异（p = 1.000，符号测试）。结论：与RECIST 1.0相比，厄洛替尼治疗后RECIST 1.1在反应评估中提供了几乎完美的协议。 PET / CT评估是影响RECIST 1.1和RECIST 1.0最佳反应评估差异的主要因素。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号