Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Cancer Res Treat : Cancer Research and Treatment

Search
Advanced Search
OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 37(5); 2005 > Article
Original Article Comparison of WHO and RECIST Criteria for Response in Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma
Jung-Hye Choi, M.D.1, Myung-Ju Ahn, M.D.1, Hyan-Chul Rhim, M.D.2, Jin-Woo Kim, M.D.2, Gang-Hong Lee, M.D.3, Young-Yeul Lee, M.D.1, In-Soon Kim, M.D.1
Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2005;37(5):290-293.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2005.37.5.290
Published online: October 31, 2005

1Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

2Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

3Department of Surgery, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Correspondence: Myung-Ju Ahn, Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, 17 Haengdang-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 133-792, Korea. (Tel) 82-2-2290-8335, (Fax) 82-2-2298-9183, ahnmj@hanyang.ac.kr
• Received: July 11, 2005   • Accepted: August 26, 2005

Copyright © 2005 Korean Cancer Association

  • 17,501 Views
  • 114 Download
  • 34 Crossref
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Purpose
    This study compared the WHO criteria with the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) in the same patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in order to determine the significance of the RECIST. In addition, this study compared the estimations of medical oncologists with those of a radiologist.
  • Materials and Methods
    Between 2002 and 2005, a total of 48 patients (male: female ratio, 29:19; median age, 58 years) with measurable lesions receiving chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal carcinoma were enrolled in this study. Two medical oncologists and one radiologist, who were blinded to the patients' condition, independently reviewed all the CT images. The results were compared using a kappa test.
  • Results
    The kappa test for concordance between the WHO and RECIST criteria of the medical oncologists and the radiologist were 0.908 and 0.841, respectively. The level of concordance between the investigators using the WHO and RECIST were 0.722 and 0.753, respectively.
  • Conclusion
    The RECIST criteria are comparable to the WHO criteria in evaluating the response of colorectal carcinoma, but have simple and reproducible guidelines. The use of RECIST is recommended for evaluating the treatment efficacy in clinical trials and practice.
  • Key words: Tumor response, RECIST, WHO, Metastatic colorectal carcinoma
An evaluation of the tumor response to treatment is important in clinical trials for new drugs as well as the routine management of advanced malignancies. Since the early 1980s, the WHO response criteria were adopted as the standard method for evaluating the tumor response (1). According to the WHO criteria, the total tumor size is determined by bidimensional measurements e.g. the sum of the products of the two longest diameters in the perpendicular dimensions of all tumors. The tumor response to treatment is divided into four categories. However, some problems have arisen when using these criteria and a new methodology is required (2). Recently, the RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) was proposed as a new guideline for evaluating the response using unidimensional measurements instead of bidimensional measurements, a lower number of measured lesions, the withdrawal of the progression criteria based on the isolated increase in a single lesion, and a different shrinkage threshold for defining the tumor response and progression (3). In order to clarify the significance of these new guidelines, the WHO and RECIST criteria were compared in the same patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, and the estimations by medical oncologists were compared with those of a radiologist.
1) Patients
Between March 2002 and March 2005, a total of 48 patients, who received chemotherapy as the first or second line treatment for metastatic colorectal carcinoma at Hanyang University Hospital, were enrolled in this study. There were 29 males (60.4%) and 19 females (39.6%), with a median age of 58.0 years (range: 31~76 years). Thirty-five patients were treated with FOLFIRI (irinotecan, leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil), nine patients were treated with XELOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin), and four patients received FOLFOX (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil). All the patients had at least one bidimensionally measurable lesion > 10×10 mm, as assessed by the CT scan.
2) Tumor measurement
The CT scans were obtained at the metastatic sites using a standardized contrast enhanced imaging protocol. All the CT scans used a spiral CT (Siemens Medical Systems, Erlangen, Germany). The CT image data were reconstructed with a 5 mm thickness and were displayed on the monitors of a picture archiving and communications system (PACS). The tumor size was measured from digitalized images with electronic calipers. The tumor response was assessed using the WHO and RECIST criteria. Table 1 gives the definition of the best response according to the WHO or RECIST criteria. Two medical oncologists reviewed CT images together and one radiologist separately reviewed all the CT images without any information of the patients. The tumor measurements were performed two times for each lesion. The results were compared using the kappa test for the concordance of the response. If the kappa value was > 0.8, the concordance was considered to be excellent and a kappa value ranging from 0.60 to 0.80 was considered to be good.
Table 2 and Fig. 1 show a comparison of the WHO and RECIST criteria estimated by the two medical oncologists and the radiologist. When the medical oncologists performed the tumor measurements, the overall response and progression rates according to the WHO criteria were 35.4% (1 CR and 16 PR) and 29.2% (14 PD), respectively. Using the RECIST criteria, two patients with SD based on the WHO criteria were reclassified as PR, and one patient with PR was downgraded to SD. The overall response rate was then 37.5% (1 CR, 17 PR). The kappa test for the concordance of the medical oncologists using the WHO and RECIST criteria was 0.908. When the radiologist performed the tumor measurements, there were 1 CR, 14 PR, 21 SD, and 12 PD according to the WHO criteria, and 1 CR, 15 PR, 22 SD, and 10 PD according to the RECIST criteria. The overall response rate according to the WHO criteria was 31.3%. Five patients were reclassified using the RECIST criteria, and the overall response rate was 33.3%. The kappa test for the concordance of the overall response was 0.841.
The treatment response using WHO were concordant in 39 patients (81.3%) between the two investigator groups, and those using the RECIST criteria were concordant in 40 patients (83.3%). The level of concordance between the investigators using the WHO and RECIST were 0.722 and 0.753, respectively.
A standardized approach to measuring a tumor and determining the response criteria is important for making appropriate medical decisions. In order to prevent an inappropriate designation of a tumor response, the tumor measurements should be standardized and be accurate, with a low intra-and inter-observer variability. For more than 2 decades, the WHO response criteria have been standard method for making a radiological tumor evaluation. However, these criteria are quite complex. Measuring all visible lesions in two dimensions is considerably time-consuming and has a risk of error. In 1994, a large international working group was established to review the guide-lines. After several years of intensive discussion and an analysis of 14 large clinical trials, which included more than 4,500 patients, the working group concluded that unidimensional tumor measurements provide results equivalent to those obtained using the bidimensional criteria and finally recommended the simpler new guidelines, the RECIST criteria (3).
The theoretical background for the RECIST criteria is that the sum of the largest diameters of the individual tumors is more linearly related to the level of cell death than the sum of the bidimensional products (4). In the RECIST criteria, a PR is defined as at least a 30% reduction in the sum of the longest diameter of the target lesions, and a PD is defined as at least a 20% increase in the sum of the longest diameter. Assuming that tumors are spherical, a 30% decrease in the sum of the diameters, which corresponds to a 65% decrease in the tumor volume, is equivalent to a 50% reduction in the sum of the bidimensional products. Accordingly, the threshold of a PR using the two criteria is almost identical. However, the limit of PD is higher in the RECIST criteria, a 20% increase in the largest diameter represents a 73% increase in the tumor volume versus a 40% increase in the tumor volume when there is a 25% increase in the bidimensional product. One of the new concepts of the RECIST is the documentation of the target and non-target lesions. A maximum of five lesions per organ and 10 lesions in total should be identified as target lesions, and the sum of the longest diameter for all the target lesions will be calculated.
After the proposal of the RECIST criteria, several studies were carried out to validate this new guideline in various solid tumors (5~7). These analyses concluded that the RECIST criteria are as effective as the WHO criteria in terms of the response rate. However, inter-observer and intra-observer variations are still an unsolved problem in the RECIST criteria, and this method is not suitable for several tumors such as a pleural mesothelioma (8). Erasmus et al reported that the measurements of the lung tumor size on a CT scan using bidimensional and unidimensional methods are often inconsistent. This can lead to an incorrect interpretation of the tumor response and a greater inter-observer variability than intra-observer variability. Moreover, the measurement differences are greatest when the edge of the lesion is irregular or speculated (9).
This study showed excellent agreement between the WHO and RECIST criteria estimated by two medical oncologists and one radiologist, respectively. The results of the kappa test for concordance in the overall response were > 0.8. A discordant result is usually obtained when a tumor has an irregular or asymmetric shape or when the calculated sum is close to the threshold level. There might be discrepancies in measuring the tumor response rate between an oncologist and radiologist due to errors in the tumor measurements and errors in selecting the target lesions. It is believed that the inter-observer variability using the RECIST criteria may be lower than when using the WHO criteria because the RECIST criteria are simpler to apply. Therefore, the estimations of medical oncologists were compared with those of a radiologist. However, both results using the RECIST and WHO criteria showed good agreement between the two investigator groups. Therefore, it is essential that medical oncologists and radiologists work in unison when evaluating the tumor response.
These results suggest that the RECIST criteria are comparable to the WHO criteria in evaluating the response in a colorectal carcinoma using simple and reproducible guidelines. Although the use of the RECIST criteria is useful for evaluating the treatment efficacy in clinical trials and practice, the limitation of the RECIST criteria highlight the need for additional response analysis techniques.

This work was supported by the research fund (2002) of Hanyang University.

  • 1. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47:207–214. PMID: 7459811ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Thiesse P, Ollivier L, Di Stefano-Louineau D, Negrier S, Savary J, Pignard K, et al. Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for interobserver variability. Groupe Francais d'Immunotherapie of the Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:3507–3514. PMID: 9396404ArticlePubMed
  • 3. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–216. PMID: 10655437ArticlePubMed
  • 4. James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M, Terenziani M, Vena D, Muldal A, et al. Unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:523–528. PMID: 10088622ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Trillet-Lenoir V, Freyer G, Kaemmerlen P, Fond A, Pellet O, Lombard-Bohas C, et al. Assessment of tumour response to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: accuracy of the RECIST criteria. Br J Radiol. 2002;75:903–908. PMID: 12466256ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Park JO, Lee SI, Song SY, Kim K, Kim WS, Jung CW, et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: comparison of RECIST and WHO response criteria. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2003;33:533–537. PMID: 14623923ArticlePubMed
  • 7. Prasad SR, Saini S, Sumner JE, Hahn PF, Sahani D, Boland GW. Radiological measurement of breast cancer metastases to lung and liver: comparison between WHO (bidimensional) and RECIST (unidimensional) guidelines. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2003;27:380–384. PMID: 12794603ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Byrne MJ, Nowak AK. Modified RECIST criteria for assessment of response in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:257–260. PMID: 14760119ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, Sabloff BS, Truong MT, Herbst RS, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2574–2582. PMID: 12829678ArticlePubMed
Fig. 1
Change in the response between the WHO and RECIST criteria estimated by the medical oncologist (A) and radiologist (B).
crt-37-290-g001.jpg
Table 1
The WHO and RECIST* criteria
crt-37-290-i001.jpg

*response evaluation criteria in solid tumors, †complete response, ‡partial response, §stable disease, ∥progressive disease.

Table 2
Comparison of the WHO and RECIST criteria estimated by the medical oncologist (A) and radiologist (B).
crt-37-290-i002.jpg

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • A nomogram prognostic model for early hepatocellular carcinoma with diabetes mellitus after primary liver resection based on the admission characteristics
      Menghan Zhang, Qi Wang, Gongming Zhang, Guangming Li, Ronghua Jin, Huichun Xing
      Frontiers in Pharmacology.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Feasibility of an artificial intelligence system for tumor response evaluation
      Nie Xiuli, Chen Hua, Gao Peng, Yu Hairong, Sun Meili, Yan Peng
      BMC Medical Imaging.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Immunotherapy Assessment: A New Paradigm for Radiologists
      Vincenza Granata, Roberta Fusco, Sergio Venanzio Setola, Igino Simonetti, Carmine Picone, Ester Simeone, Lucia Festino, Vito Vanella, Maria Grazia Vitale, Agnese Montanino, Alessandro Morabito, Francesco Izzo, Paolo Antonio Ascierto, Antonella Petrillo
      Diagnostics.2023; 13(2): 302.     CrossRef
    • Study on the Application Value of Lung-RADS in the Differential Diagnosis of Benign and Malignant Lung Nodules
      ·马木提 依力夏提
      Advances in Clinical Medicine.2023; 13(12): 20190.     CrossRef
    • Reliability and accuracy in radiographic measurements of musculoskeletal tumors
      Alec S. Kellish, Sandra Miskiel, John Gaughan, Veniamin Barshay, Tae W. Kim, Christina J. Gutowski
      Journal of Orthopaedic Research.2022; 40(7): 1654.     CrossRef
    • Anti-cancer treatment schedule optimization based on tumor dynamics modelling incorporating evolving resistance
      Anyue Yin, Johan G. C. van Hasselt, Henk-Jan Guchelaar, Lena E. Friberg, Dirk Jan A. R. Moes
      Scientific Reports.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Correlation Between Early Time-to-Event Outcomes and Overall Survival in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Receiving Definitive Chemoradiation Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
      Christopher M. Black, Sam Keeping, Ali Mojebi, Karthik Ramakrishnan, Diana Chirovsky, Navneet Upadhyay, Dylan Maciel, Dieter Ayers
      Frontiers in Oncology.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • A quantitative and comparative evaluation of stereotactic spine radiosurgery local control: proposing a consistent measurement methodology
      Ran Harel, Tehila Kaisman-Elbaz, Todd Emch, Paul Elson, Samuel T Chao, John H Suh, Lilyana Angelov
      Neurosurgical Focus.2022; 53(5): E10.     CrossRef
    • Lung-RADS Version 1.1: Challenges and a Look Ahead, From the AJR Special Series on Radiology Reporting and Data Systems
      Lydia Chelala, Rydhwana Hossain, Ella A. Kazerooni, Jared D. Christensen, Debra S. Dyer, Charles S. White
      American Journal of Roentgenology.2021; 216(6): 1411.     CrossRef
    • Perillyl alcohol as a treatment for cancer: A systematic review
      Aimée Obolari Durço, Lino Sérgio Rocha Conceição, Diego Santos de Souza, Carlos Anselmo Lima, Jullyana de Souza Siqueira Quintans, Márcio Roberto Viana dos Santos
      Phytomedicine Plus.2021; 1(3): 100090.     CrossRef
    • Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Advanced Gallbladder Cancer: Do We have Enough Evidence? A Systematic Review
      Shah Naveed, Hasina Qari, Cao M Thau, Pipit Burasakarn, Abdul W Mir
      Euroasian Journal of Hepato-Gastroenterology.2021; 11(2): 87.     CrossRef
    • Objective response rate assessment in oncology: Current situation and future expectations
      Nuri Faruk Aykan, Tahsin Özatlı
      World Journal of Clinical Oncology.2020; 11(2): 53.     CrossRef
    • Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma
      Omar Abdel-Rahman, Zeinab Elsayed
      Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • What scans we will read: imaging instrumentation trends in clinical oncology
      Thomas Beyer, Luc Bidaut, John Dickson, Marc Kachelriess, Fabian Kiessling, Rainer Leitgeb, Jingfei Ma, Lalith Kumar Shiyam Sundar, Benjamin Theek, Osama Mawlawi
      Cancer Imaging.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Herb–drug interactions between the medicinal mushrooms Lingzhi and Yunzhi and cytotoxic anticancer drugs: a systematic review
      Chun Sing Lam, Lok Pui Cheng, Li Min Zhou, Yin Ting Cheung, Zhong Zuo
      Chinese Medicine.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Immune Response Evaluation and Treatment with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Beyond Clinical Progression: Response Assessments for Cancer Immunotherapy
      Sirisha L. Mushti, Flora Mulkey, Shenghui Tang, Harpreet Singh, Steven J. Lemery, Kirsten B. Goldberg, Rajeshwari Sridhara, Patricia Keegan, Paul G. Kluetz, Richard Pazdur, Marc R. Theoret, Julia A. Beaver
      Current Oncology Reports.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Salvage systemic therapy for advanced gastric and oesophago-gastric junction adenocarcinoma
      Yoko Tomita, Max Moldovan, Rachael Chang Lee, Amy HC Hsieh, Amanda Townsend, Timothy Price
      Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for advanced gallbladder cancer – A systematic review
      Abdul R Hakeem, Michail Papoulas, Krishna V Menon
      European Journal of Surgical Oncology.2019; 45(2): 83.     CrossRef
    • Polymorphisms of genes encoding drug transporters or cytochrome P450 enzymes and association with clinical response in cancer patients: a systematic review
      Inthuorn Kulma, Kanyarat Boonprasert, Kesara Na-Bangchang
      Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.2019; 84(5): 959.     CrossRef
    • Identification of a 13‑gene‑based classifier as a potential biomarker to predict the effects of fluorouracil‑based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer
      Zuhuan Gan, Qiyuan Zou, Yan Lin, Zihai Xu, Zhong Huang, Zhichao Chen, Yufeng Lv
      Oncology Letters.2019;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Tumor Response Assessment for Precision Cancer Therapy: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and Beyond
      Mizuki Nishino
      American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book.2018; (38): 1019.     CrossRef
    • Practical clinical guide on the use of talimogene laherparepvec monotherapy in patients with unresectable melanoma in Europe
      Ralf Gutzmer, Kevin J. Harrington, Christoph Hoeller, Celeste Lebbé, Josep Malvehy, Katarina Öhrling, Gerald Downey, Reinhard Dummer
      European Journal of Dermatology.2018; 28(6): 736.     CrossRef
    • Unidimensional measurement may be superior to assess primary tumor response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma
      Chuanben Chen, Xiurong Lin, Yuanji Xu, Penggang Bai, Youping Xiao, Yuhui Pan, Chao Li, Zhizhong Lin, Mingwei Zhang, Yunbin Chen
      Oncotarget.2017; 8(29): 46937.     CrossRef
    • Trials of vaccines for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Is there any hope of an improved prognosis?
      Toru Mizuguchi, Toshihiko Torigoe, Fukino Satomi, Hiroaki Shima, Goro Kutomi, Shigenori Ota, Masayuki Ishii, Hiroshi Hayashi, Sumiyo Asakura, Yoshihiko Hirohashi, Makoto Meguro, Yasutoshi Kimura, Toshihiko Nishidate, Kenji Okita, Masaho Ishino, Atsushi Mi
      Surgery Today.2016; 46(2): 139.     CrossRef
    • Comparison of WHO, RECIST 1.1, EORTC, and PERCIST criteria in the evaluation of treatment response in malignant solid tumors
      Mustafa Aras, Tanju Y. Erdil, Faysal Dane, Serkan Gungor, Tunc Ones, Fuat Dede, Sabahat Inanir, Halil T. Turoglu
      Nuclear Medicine Communications.2016; 37(1): 9.     CrossRef
    • Recommendations for improving the quality of reporting clinical electrochemotherapy studies based on qualitative systematic review
      Luca G. Campana, A. James P. Clover, Sara Valpione, Pietro Quaglino, Julie Gehl, Christian Kunte, Marko Snoj, Maja Cemazar, Carlo R. Rossi, Damijan Miklavcic, Gregor Sersa
      Radiology and Oncology.2016; 50(1): 1.     CrossRef
    • Comparison of the RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 in patients treated with targeted agents: a pooled analysis and review
      Jung Han Kim
      Oncotarget.2016; 7(12): 13680.     CrossRef
    • Assessment of Treatment Response Using PET
      Sandip Basu, Rakesh Kumar, Rohit Ranade
      PET Clinics.2015; 10(1): 9.     CrossRef
    • Single-Lesion Measurement per Organ for Assessing Tumor Response in Advanced Gastric Cancer
      Hyeong Su Kim, Ji Won Kim, Jung Han Kim, Dae Ro Choi, A. Rum Han, Min-Joeng Kim, Byung Chun Kim, Dae Young Zang
      Oncology.2015; 88(2): 69.     CrossRef
    • Tumor response assessment by measuring the single largest lesion per organ in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer
      Hyeong Su Kim, Jung Han Kim, Ik Yang
      Lung Cancer.2014; 85(3): 385.     CrossRef
    • Nucleotide excision repair gene polymorphisms and prognosis of non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy: A meta-analysis based on 44 studies
      DONGNING HUANG, YANG ZHOU
      Biomedical Reports.2014; 2(4): 452.     CrossRef
    • XRCC1 and GSTP1 polymorphisms and prognosis of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis
      Fanghui Ye, Zhenfang Liu, Aihua Tan, Ming Liao, Zengnan Mo, Xiaobo Yang
      Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.2013; 71(3): 733.     CrossRef
    • Relationship between 6‐ and 9‐month progression‐free survival and overall survival in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer treated with first‐line cisplatin‐based chemotherapy
      Matthew D. Galsky, Susan Krege, Chia‐Chi Lin, Noah Hahn, Thorsten Ecke, Erin Moshier, Guru Sonpavde, James Godbold, William K. Oh, Aristotle Bamias
      Cancer.2013; 119(16): 3020.     CrossRef
    • Diagnostic and therapeutic imaging for cancer: Therapeutic considerations and future directions
      Mack Roach, Jean‐Louis Alberini, Alain Paul Pecking, Alessandro Testori, Francesco Verrecchia, Javier Soteldo, Ute Ganswindt, John L. Joyal, John W. Babich, Russell S. Witte, Evan Unger, Ronald Gottlieb
      Journal of Surgical Oncology.2011; 103(6): 587.     CrossRef

    • PubReader PubReader
    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite
      CITE
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      Comparison of WHO and RECIST Criteria for Response in Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma
      Cancer Res Treat. 2005;37(5):290-293.   Published online October 31, 2005
      DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2005.37.5.290
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    • 0
    Comparison of WHO and RECIST Criteria for Response in Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma
    Image
    Fig. 1 Change in the response between the WHO and RECIST criteria estimated by the medical oncologist (A) and radiologist (B).

    Fig. 1

    Comparison of WHO and RECIST Criteria for Response in Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma

    The WHO and RECIST* criteria

    *response evaluation criteria in solid tumors, †complete response, ‡partial response, §stable disease, ∥progressive disease.

    Comparison of the WHO and RECIST criteria estimated by the medical oncologist (A) and radiologist (B).
    Table 1 The WHO and RECIST* criteria

    *response evaluation criteria in solid tumors, †complete response, ‡partial response, §stable disease, ∥progressive disease.

    Table 2 Comparison of the WHO and RECIST criteria estimated by the medical oncologist (A) and radiologist (B).

    Table 1

    Table 2

    Cancer Res Treat : Cancer Research and Treatment
    © Korean Cancer Association.
    Close layer
    TOP