Illaa Smesseim MD, Kevin B. W. Groot Lipman PhD, Ferry Lalezari MD, Jacobus A. Burgers MD, PhD, Stefano Trebeschi PhD
{"title":"实体瘤反应评价标准的历史概述","authors":"Illaa Smesseim MD, Kevin B. W. Groot Lipman PhD, Ferry Lalezari MD, Jacobus A. Burgers MD, PhD, 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":"{\"title\":\"The legend of the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: A historical overview\",\"authors\":\"Illaa Smesseim MD, Kevin B. W. Groot Lipman PhD, Ferry Lalezari MD, Jacobus A. Burgers MD, PhD, 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}","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}
The legend of the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: A historical overview
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.
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