evaluating NET responses must also take these differences into account. Currently, the evaluation of NET therapeutic responses is mainly based on Radiological Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v1.1 (RECIST; Eisenhauer et al . 2009 ). However, as
Search Results
Louis de Mestier, Clarisse Dromain, Gaspard d'Assignies, Jean-Yves Scoazec, Nathalie Lassau, Rachida Lebtahi, Hedia Brixi, Emmanuel Mitry, Rosine Guimbaud, Frédéric Courbon, Michèle d'Herbomez, and Guillaume Cadiot
Tessa Brabander, Wouter A van der Zwan, Jaap J M Teunissen, Boen L R Kam, Wouter W de Herder, Richard A Feelders, Eric P Krenning, and Dik J Kwekkeboom
possible side-effects. These blood tests include haematology, renal and liver function parameters, and measurement of tumour markers. For response evaluation after therapy, imaging is done in addition to these blood tests. In 2013 van Vliet and coworkers
Vera Cappelletti, Luigi Celio, Emilio Bajetta, Arianna Allevi, Raffaella Longarini, Patrizia Miodini, Raffaella Villa, Alessandra Fabbri, Luigi Mariani, Riccardo Giovanazzi, Emanuele Galante, Marco Greco, and Maria Grazia Daidone
to endocrine therapy within the context of a clinical study. Antiestrogens have been extensively evaluated as neoadjuvant therapy in elderly patients with breast cancer, and substantial responses of ER-positive primary tumors over a 3-month period
Camilo Jimenez, Bennett B Chin, Richard B Noto, Joseph S Dillon, Lilja Solnes, Nancy Stambler, Vincent A DiPippo, and Daniel A Pryma
retrospective analysis evaluating 16 studies reported complete biochemical response (CR) rates of 0–27%, 16–100% partial response (PR), and 0–63% stable disease (SD) with low-specific-activity I-131 MIBG therapy ( van Hulsteijn et al. 2014 ). In a phase 1
Kimberly Perez, Heather Jacene, Jason L Hornick, Chao Ma, Nuno Vaz, Lauren K Brais, Holly Alexander, William Baddoo, Kristina Astone, Edward D Esplin, John Garcia, Daniel M Halperin, Matthew H Kulke, and Jennifer A Chan
Radiologic response was assessed retrospectively by an independent radiologic review of available scans. Tumor response was assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1. All lesions up to a maximum of ten representative
Chen Wang, Xin Zhang, Xue Yang, Hui Li, Ruixue Cui, Wenmin Guan, Xin Li, Zhaohui Zhu, and Yansong Lin
proven effective against RAIR-DTC ( Schlumberger et al . 2015 , Lin et al . 2017 ). Traditionally, patients with RAIR-DTC were evaluated every 2 months after the therapy using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) based on
M Cives, M Ghayouri, B Morse, M Brelsford, M Black, A Rizzo, A Meeker, and J Strosberg
. Patients and methods Patients, treatment and tumor response evaluation Approval for data collection and analysis was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of South Florida (Tampa, FL, USA). We retrospectively examined 143
Sten Myrehaug, David L Chan, Victor Rodriguez-Freixinos, Hans Chung, Julie Hallet, Calvin Law, Chirag Patel, Laurent Milot, John Hudson, Hanbo Chen, and Simron Singh
/rib 2 cc maximum dose 50.4 Gy Outcomes The primary endpoint was tolerability of concurrent everolimus and radiotherapy to the liver, evaluated prospectively using CTCAE v4.03. Secondary endpoints evaluated included per-lesion response
Jolanta Krajewska, Ewa Chmielik, and Barbara Jarząb
DRS and classified as having an excellent, acceptable, biochemical incomplete or structural incomplete response. Using ATA criteria, 20.4% of patients were evaluated as low risk, 65.1% as intermediate risk and 14.6% as high risk. At the time of DRS, 57
M Cives, P L Kunz, B Morse, D Coppola, M J Schell, T Campos, P T Nguyen, P Nandoskar, V Khandelwal, and J R Strosberg
). Patients with a tumoral ki-67 index of over 20% were excluded. Previous systemic antineoplastic treatment, including octreotide and lanreotide, was not permitted. Other key eligibility criteria were measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in