2 718

Cited 0 times in

Response evaluation in patients with colorectal liver metastases: RECIST version 1.1 versus modified CT criteria

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author최진영-
dc.contributor.author김명진-
dc.contributor.author김여은-
dc.contributor.author박미숙-
dc.contributor.author백송이-
dc.contributor.author신상준-
dc.contributor.author정우석-
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-19T16:23:54Z-
dc.date.available2014-12-19T16:23:54Z-
dc.date.issued2012-
dc.identifier.issn0361-803X-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/89450-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: Our retrospective study compared Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 with modified CT criteria to determine their respective utilities as a prognostic indicator. Using both sets of criteria, we compared treatment responses of patients with colorectal liver metastases treated with bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy with those of patients treated with chemotherapy alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine patients who received bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy (n=30, group 1) or chemotherapy alone (n=29, group 2) for the treatment of colorectal carcinoma underwent contrast-enhanced CT before treatment and 2 months after treatment. Two radiologists determined changes in tumor size and density between the pretreatment and 2-month follow-up CT images. RECIST 1.1 assesses responses on the basis of changes in tumor size, and the modified CT criteria assesses responses on the basis of changes in tumor density and size. Responses were correlated with time to tumor progression by log rank test. RESULTS: According to RECIST 1.1, nine of 30 patients (30%) in group 1 and 12 of 29 patients (41%) in group 2 were good responders. According to the modified CT criteria, 23 of 30 patients in group 1 (77%) and 23 of 29 patients in group 2 (79%) were good responders. As assessed by the modified CT criteria, good responders in both groups had significantly longer time to tumor progression than poor responders (p<0.05). As assessed by RECIST 1.1, good responders in group 1 had significantly longer time to tumor progression than poor responders (p=0.0154), but there was no difference in group 2. CONCLUSION: Evaluating treatment response with tumor size and density changes on CT was a better predictor of time to tumor progression than changes in tumor size alone in both groups.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityopen-
dc.relation.isPartOfAMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/-
dc.subject.MESHAdult-
dc.subject.MESHAged-
dc.subject.MESHAngiogenesis Inhibitors/therapeutic use*-
dc.subject.MESHAntibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use*-
dc.subject.MESHAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use*-
dc.subject.MESHBevacizumab-
dc.subject.MESHColorectal Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging-
dc.subject.MESHColorectal Neoplasms/drug therapy*-
dc.subject.MESHColorectal Neoplasms/pathology*-
dc.subject.MESHContrast Media-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHImage Processing, Computer-Assisted-
dc.subject.MESHIohexol/analogs & derivatives-
dc.subject.MESHLiver Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging*-
dc.subject.MESHLiver Neoplasms/secondary*-
dc.subject.MESHMale-
dc.subject.MESHMiddle Aged-
dc.subject.MESHMultidetector Computed Tomography*-
dc.subject.MESHPrognosis-
dc.titleResponse evaluation in patients with colorectal liver metastases: RECIST version 1.1 versus modified CT criteria-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine (의과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Internal Medicine (내과학)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorWoo-Suk Chung-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMi-Suk Park-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSang Joon Shin-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSong-Ee Baek-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYeo-Eun Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJin Young Choi-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMyeong-Jin Kim-
dc.identifier.doi22997372-
dc.admin.authorfalse-
dc.admin.mappingfalse-
dc.contributor.localIdA04200-
dc.contributor.localIdA00426-
dc.contributor.localIdA00688-
dc.contributor.localIdA01463-
dc.contributor.localIdA01822-
dc.contributor.localIdA02105-
dc.contributor.localIdA03665-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ00116-
dc.identifier.eissn1546-3141-
dc.identifier.pmid22997372-
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.ajronline.org/doi/abs/10.2214/AJR.11.7910-
dc.subject.keywordcolorectal cancer-
dc.subject.keywordliver metastasis-
dc.subject.keywordmodified CT criteria-
dc.subject.keywordRECIST 1.1-
dc.subject.keywordResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-
dc.subject.keywordtreatment response-
dc.subject.keywordtumor density-
dc.subject.keywordtumor size-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameChoi, Jin Young-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Myeong Jin-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Yeo Eun-
dc.contributor.alternativeNamePark, Mi Sook-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameBaek, Song Ee-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameShin, Sang Joon-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameChung, Woo Suk-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorChoi, Jin Young-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorKim, Myeong Jin-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorKim, Yeo Eun-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorPark, Mi-Suk-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorBaek, Song Ee-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorShin, Sang Joon-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorChung, Woo Suk-
dc.citation.volume199-
dc.citation.number4-
dc.citation.startPage809-
dc.citation.endPage815-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationAMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, Vol.199(4) : 809-815, 2012-
dc.identifier.rimsid31776-
dc.type.rimsART-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Ophthalmology (안과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Radiology (영상의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.