European Journal of Cancer
Volume 45, Issue 2 , Pages 225-227 , January 2009

Cancer clinical trial outcomes: Any progress in tumour-size assessment?

  • Jaap Verweij

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075 EA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Tel.: +31 10 704 1331; fax: +31 10 704 1003.
    • ,
  • Patrick Therasse

      Affiliations

    • GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium
    • ,
  • Elizabeth Eisenhauer

      Affiliations

    • National Cancer Institute of Canada, Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada
    • ,
  • on behalf of the RECIST working group

Received 17 October 2008 ,Accepted 29 October 2008.

References 

  1. Zubrod CG, Schneiderman SM, Frei E, et al. Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and thio phosphoamide. J Chronic Dis. 1960;11:7–33
  2. Gehan E, Schneidermann M. Historical and methodological developments in clinical trials at the National Cancer Institute. Stat Med. 1990;9:871–880
  3. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization Offset Publication No. 48; 1979.
  4. Miller AB, Hogestraeten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47:207–214
  5. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer I. 2000;92(3):205–216
  6. Booth CM, Calvert AH, Giaccone G, Lobbezoo MW, Seymour LK, Eisenhauer EA. Endpoints and other considerations in phase I studies of targeted anticancer therapy: recommendations from the task force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT). Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:19–24
  7. Booth CM, Calvert AH, Giaccone G, Lobbezoo MW, Eisenhauer EA, Seymour LK. Design and conduct of phase II studies of targeted anticancer therapy: recommendations from the task force on methodology for the development of innovative cancer therapies (MDICT). Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:25–29
  8. Ratain MJ, Humphrey RW, Gordon GB, et al. Recommended changes to oncology clinical trial design: revolution or evolution?. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:8–11
  9. Ratain MJ, Sargent DJ. Optimizing the design of phase II oncology trials: The importance of randomization. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:275–280
  10. Dancey JE, Dodd LE, Ford R, et al. Recommendations for the assessment of progression in randomized cancer treatment trials. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:281–289
  11. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J. RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:1031–1039
  12. Galanis E, Buckner JC, Maurer MJ, et al. Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: measurement by RECIST, two-dimensional, computer-assisted tumor area, and computer-assisted tumor volume methods. Neuro Oncol. 2006;8:156–165
  13. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–247
  14. Bogaerts J, Ford R, Sargent D, et al. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:248–260
  15. Schwartz LH, Bogaerts J, Ford R, et al. Evaluation of lymph nodes with RECIST 1.1. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:261–267
  16. Ford R, Schwartz L, Dancey J, et al. Lessons learned from independent central review. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:268–274
  17. Sargent DJ, Rubinstein L, Schwartz L, et al. Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trials end-points. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:290–299

PII: S0959-8049(08)00872-1

doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.025

European Journal of Cancer
Volume 45, Issue 2 , Pages 225-227 , January 2009

Article Tools