جهت دسترسی به کاربرگه ی زیر، از این لینک استفاده کنید. http://dl.kums.ac.ir/handle/Hannan/115677
Title: RECIST 1.1 compared with RECIST 1.0 in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma receiving vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy
Authors: Krajewski, K M;Nishino, M;Ramaiya, N H;Choueiri, T K
Keywords: Adult;Aged;Aged, 80 and over;Carcinoma, Renal Cell/*drug therapy/pathology;Female;Human;Kidney Neoplasms/*drug therapy/pathology;Male;Middle Aged;Molecular Targeted Therapy;Neoplasm Staging;Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors;Retrospective Studies;Treatment Outcome;Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A/*therapeutic
Year: 2015
Abstract: OBJECTIVE. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) is the most widely accepted method to objectively assess response to therapy in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy. Both RECIST 1.0 and 1.1 have been used to assess response to VEGF-targeted therapies; however, systematic comparisons are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Sixty-two patients with metastatic RCC treated with VEGF-targeted therapies were retrospectively studied. Tumor measurements and response assessment according to RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 were compared, including the number of target lesions, baseline measurements, response at each follow-up, best overall response, and time to progression (TTP). Morphologic changes and new enhancement were also assessed over the course of treatment, and TTP was evaluated using morphologic change criteria in combination with RECIST 1.1. RESULTS. The number of target lesions according to RECIST 1.1 was significantly fewer than by RECIST 1.0 (median, 2 vs 4; p < 0.0001). At first imaging follow-up, the percentage change of the sums of the diameter measurements by RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 were highly concordant (R = 0.857; mean shrinkage, 12.1% by RECIST 1.1 vs 10.8% by RECIST 1.0). Best response assessment was highly concordant between the two criteria (weighted kappa = 0.819). There was no evidence of a difference in TTP by the two criteria, with a median TTP of 8.9 months (95% CI for the median, 5.5-13.9) by RECIST 1.1 and 8.9 months (95% CI for the median, 5.8-13.6) by RECIST 1.0. The median TTP by RECIST 1.1 alone was 8.9 months compared with 5.6 months for RECIST 1.1 and morphologic changes combined. CONCLUSION. RECIST 1.1 and RECIST 1.0 response assessments were overall highly concordant in patients with RCC treated with VEGF-targeted therapy, with fewer target lesions according to RECIST 1.1 but no difference in TTP.
URI: http://dl.kums.ac.ir/handle/Hannan/115677
ISSN: 0361-803x
volume: Volume 204
Issue: Issue 3
month: March
More Information: Volume : 204Issue : 3Start page : W282
END PAGES : 8
Appears in Collections:American Journal of Roentgenology

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
2015 AJR Volume 204 Issue 3 March (43).pdf852.81 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
Download    Request a copy


تمامی کاربرگه ها در کتابخانه ی دیجیتال حنان به صورت کامل محافظت می شوند.