129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16231313)
1. Limitations with the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) guidance in disseminated pediatric malignancy.
Barnacle AM; McHugh K
Pediatr Blood Cancer; 2006 Feb; 46(2):127-34. PubMed ID: 16231313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Improving accuracy in reporting CT scans of oncology patients: assessing the effect of education and feedback interventions on the application of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria.
Andoh H; McNulty NJ; Lewis PJ
Acad Radiol; 2013 Mar; 20(3):351-7. PubMed ID: 23452481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Revised RECIST guideline version 1.1: What oncologists want to know and what radiologists need to know.
Nishino M; Jagannathan JP; Ramaiya NH; Van den Abbeele AD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Aug; 195(2):281-9. PubMed ID: 20651182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Response assessment in solid tumours: a comparison of WHO, SWOG and RECIST guidelines.
Julka PK; Doval DC; Gupta S; Rath GK
Br J Radiol; 2008 Jun; 81(966):444-9. PubMed ID: 18316345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Tumor response assessment: comparison between unstructured free text reporting in routine clinical workflow and computer-aided evaluation based on RECIST 1.1 criteria.
Goebel J; Hoischen J; Gramsch C; Schemuth HP; Hoffmann AC; Umutlu L; Nassenstein K
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol; 2017 Dec; 143(12):2527-2533. PubMed ID: 28825135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria.
Bogaerts J; Ford R; Sargent D; Schwartz LH; Rubinstein L; Lacombe D; Eisenhauer E; Verweij J; Therasse P;
Eur J Cancer; 2009 Jan; 45(2):248-60. PubMed ID: 19095437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Response assessment in pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma: can response evaluation criteria in solid tumors replace three-dimensional volume assessments?
Schoot RA; McHugh K; van Rijn RR; Kremer LC; Chisholm JC; Caron HN; Merks JH
Radiology; 2013 Dec; 269(3):870-8. PubMed ID: 23985275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A statistical simulation study finds discordance between WHO criteria and RECIST guideline.
Mazumdar M; Smith A; Schwartz LH
J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Apr; 57(4):358-65. PubMed ID: 15135836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Radiologic assessment of response to therapy: comparison of RECIST Versions 1.1 and 1.0.
Chalian H; Töre HG; Horowitz JM; Salem R; Miller FH; Yaghmai V
Radiographics; 2011; 31(7):2093-105. PubMed ID: 22084190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST): problems and need for modifications in paediatric oncology?
McHugh K; Kao S
Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):433-6. PubMed ID: 12857700
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The role of response evaluation criteria in solid tumour in anticancer treatment evaluation: results of a survey in the oncology community.
Liu Y; Litière S; de Vries EG; Sargent D; Shankar L; Bogaerts J; Seymour L
Eur J Cancer; 2014 Jan; 50(2):260-6. PubMed ID: 24239447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors is superior to response evaluation criteria in solid tumors for assessment of responses to sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
Takada J; Hidaka H; Nakazawa T; Kondo M; Numata K; Tanaka K; Matsunaga K; Okuse C; Kobayashi S; Morimoto M; Ohkawa S; Koizumi W
BMC Res Notes; 2015 Oct; 8():609. PubMed ID: 26502722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Pearls and pitfalls of response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) v1.1 non-target lesion assessment.
Morse B; Jeong D; Ihnat G; Silva AC
Abdom Radiol (NY); 2019 Feb; 44(2):766-774. PubMed ID: 30196362
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Pitfalls in RECIST Data Extraction for Clinical Trials: Beyond the Basics.
Abramson RG; McGhee CR; Lakomkin N; Arteaga CL
Acad Radiol; 2015 Jun; 22(6):779-86. PubMed ID: 25794800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [RECIST and the radiologist].
Cervera Deval J
Radiologia; 2014; 56(3):193-205. PubMed ID: 22902252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Follow-up CT measurement of liver malignoma according to RECIST and WHO vs. volumetry].
Heussel CP; Meier S; Wittelsberger S; Götte H; Mildenberger P; Kauczor HU
Rofo; 2007 Sep; 179(9):958-64. PubMed ID: 17594629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Course of size and density of metastatic renal cell carcinoma lesions in the early follow-up of molecular targeted therapy.
Hittinger M; Staehler M; Schramm N; Ubleis C; Becker C; Reiser M; Berger F
Urol Oncol; 2012 Sep; 30(5):695-703. PubMed ID: 21865061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Comparison of RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST for Response Evaluation in Solid Tumours].
Houdek Š; Büchler T; Kindlová E
Klin Onkol; 2017; 30(Supplementum3):32-39. PubMed ID: 29239190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Radiological monitoring of the treatment of solid tumors in practice.
Ganten MK; Ganten TM; Schlemmer HP
Rofo; 2014 May; 186(5):466-73. PubMed ID: 24563412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors and European Association for The Study of the Liver criteria using delayed-phase imaging at an early time point predict survival in patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma following yttrium-90 radioembolization.
Camacho JC; Kokabi N; Xing M; Prajapati HJ; El-Rayes B; Kim HS
J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2014 Feb; 25(2):256-65. PubMed ID: 24461131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
