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

Brian Morse | Zendy; Daniel Jeong | Zendy; Gary Ihnat | Zendy; Alvin C. Silva | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Open Access

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

Author(s) -

Brian Morse,

Daniel Jeong,

Gary Ihnat,

Alvin C. Silva

Publication year - 2018

Publication title -

abdominal radiology

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 0.824

H-Index - 74

eISSN - 2366-004X

pISSN - 2366-0058

DOI - 10.1007/s00261-018-1752-4

Subject(s) - medicine , response evaluation criteria in solid tumors , target lesion , clinical trial , radiology , lesion , solid tumor , medical physics , nuclear medicine , cancer , pathology , percutaneous coronary intervention , phases of clinical research , myocardial infarction

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.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research