The legend of the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: A historical overview

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Cancer Pub Date : 2025-08-28 DOI:10.1002/cncr.70064
Illaa Smesseim MD, Kevin B. W. Groot Lipman PhD, Ferry Lalezari MD, Jacobus A. Burgers MD, PhD, Stefano Trebeschi PhD
{"title":"The legend of the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: A historical overview","authors":"Illaa Smesseim MD,&nbsp;Kevin B. W. Groot Lipman PhD,&nbsp;Ferry Lalezari MD,&nbsp;Jacobus A. Burgers MD, PhD,&nbsp;Stefano Trebeschi PhD","doi":"10.1002/cncr.70064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>In this review, the historical development of tumor response criteria is examined and an interview was conducted with one of the original researchers behind the original study. This study, published nearly five decades ago, assessed tumor size through palpation and measurements of simulated tumor masses (“balls under mattresses”). The methodology used in that early study as well as in subsequent research that has influenced modifications of the current response evaluation criteria was critically evaluated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The current tumor response criteria trace back to a 1976 study by Moertel and Hanley, which relied on palpation to measure tumor size. The key outcome, a 50% reduction in the product of the longest perpendicular diameters of the most measurable tumor mass, formed the basis for later criteria. The World Health Organization criteria adopted these thresholds for response and introduced a 25% increase as a cutoff for progression. Later, unidimensional measurements replaced two-dimensional ones, with adjusted thresholds accordingly. These criteria further inspired the development of specialized response criteria such as Choi, mRECIST, and PERCIST.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>By analyzing the evolution of RECIST, it is highlighted that these criteria are not fixed standards but rather the product of a series of pragmatic choices and compromises rooted in their historical context. With advances in technology, including artificial intelligence and volumetric imaging, it is timely to reassess the reliability of current criteria and explore new approaches to tumor response evaluation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":138,"journal":{"name":"Cancer","volume":"131 17","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cncr.70064","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.70064","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Methods

In this review, the historical development of tumor response criteria is examined and an interview was conducted with one of the original researchers behind the original study. This study, published nearly five decades ago, assessed tumor size through palpation and measurements of simulated tumor masses (“balls under mattresses”). The methodology used in that early study as well as in subsequent research that has influenced modifications of the current response evaluation criteria was critically evaluated.

Results

The current tumor response criteria trace back to a 1976 study by Moertel and Hanley, which relied on palpation to measure tumor size. The key outcome, a 50% reduction in the product of the longest perpendicular diameters of the most measurable tumor mass, formed the basis for later criteria. The World Health Organization criteria adopted these thresholds for response and introduced a 25% increase as a cutoff for progression. Later, unidimensional measurements replaced two-dimensional ones, with adjusted thresholds accordingly. These criteria further inspired the development of specialized response criteria such as Choi, mRECIST, and PERCIST.

Conclusion

By analyzing the evolution of RECIST, it is highlighted that these criteria are not fixed standards but rather the product of a series of pragmatic choices and compromises rooted in their historical context. With advances in technology, including artificial intelligence and volumetric imaging, it is timely to reassess the reliability of current criteria and explore new approaches to tumor response evaluation.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

实体瘤反应评价标准的历史概述
方法本综述回顾了肿瘤反应标准的历史发展,并采访了原研究的一位原始研究人员。这项研究发表于近50年前,通过触诊和测量模拟肿瘤肿块(“床垫下的球”)来评估肿瘤大小。这项早期研究以及后来的研究中所使用的方法受到了严格的评价,这些方法对目前的反应评价标准的修改产生了影响。结果目前的肿瘤反应标准可追溯到1976年Moertel和Hanley的一项研究,该研究依靠触诊来测量肿瘤大小。关键的结果是最可测量的肿瘤块的最长垂直直径的乘积减少了50%,这为后来的标准奠定了基础。世界卫生组织的标准采用了这些应对阈值,并将增加25%作为进展的截止值。后来,一维测量取代了二维测量,并相应地调整了阈值。这些标准进一步激发了诸如Choi、mRECIST和PERCIST等专门反应标准的发展。通过分析RECIST的演变,强调这些标准不是固定的标准,而是植根于其历史背景的一系列务实选择和妥协的产物。随着技术的进步,包括人工智能和体积成像,重新评估当前标准的可靠性并探索肿瘤反应评估的新方法是及时的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cancer
Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
3.20%
发文量
480
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: The CANCER site is a full-text, electronic implementation of CANCER, an Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society, and CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY, a Journal of the American Cancer Society. CANCER publishes interdisciplinary oncologic information according to, but not limited to, the following disease sites and disciplines: blood/bone marrow; breast disease; endocrine disorders; epidemiology; gastrointestinal tract; genitourinary disease; gynecologic oncology; head and neck disease; hepatobiliary tract; integrated medicine; lung disease; medical oncology; neuro-oncology; pathology radiation oncology; translational research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信