Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Abdominal Radiology 2/2019

01-02-2019 | Pictorial essay

Pearls and pitfalls of response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) v1.1 non-target lesion assessment

Authors: Brian Morse, Daniel Jeong, Gary Ihnat, Alvin C. Silva

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 2/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Oncologic imaging is an important facet of abdominal imaging that radiologists encounter nearly every day. Many oncology clinical trials utilize response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 which divides tumor sites into target and non-target lesions. Although RECIST v1.1 provides clear instructions regarding the use of imaging in clinical trials, errors in response assessment still occur using these criteria. This is especially true of response assessment with regards to non-target lesions which involve rules which are less well-defined and somewhat subjective. This pictorial essay will review RECIST v1.1 guidelines and common non-target lesion errors which can occur at baseline and follow-up response assessment.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A (1981) Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47(1):207–214CrossRefPubMed Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A (1981) Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47(1):207–214CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(3):205–216CrossRefPubMed Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(3):205–216CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Green S, Weiss GR (1992) Southwest Oncology Group standard response criteria, endpoint definitions and toxicity criteria. Investig New Drugs 10(4):239–253CrossRef Green S, Weiss GR (1992) Southwest Oncology Group standard response criteria, endpoint definitions and toxicity criteria. Investig New Drugs 10(4):239–253CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Pearls and pitfalls of response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) v1.1 non-target lesion assessment
Authors
Brian Morse
Daniel Jeong
Gary Ihnat
Alvin C. Silva
Publication date
01-02-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Abdominal Radiology / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1752-4

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Abdominal Radiology 2/2019 Go to the issue

Classics in Abdominal Radiology

Tensile gallbladder fundus sign

Classics in Abdominal Radiology

The “two-tone” testis

Classics in Abdominal Radiology

The central dot sign of epiploic appendagitis

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discuss last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.