Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 27, 2026

Comparison of Predictive Performance of Three Lymph Node Staging Systems in Colorectal Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma Based on Machine Learning Model
07:13

Comparison of Predictive Performance of Three Lymph Node Staging Systems in Colorectal Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma Based on Machine Learning Model

Published on: April 18, 2025

New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

E A Eisenhauer1, P Therasse, J Bogaerts

  • 1National Cancer Institute of Canada-Clinical Trials Group, 10 Stuart Street, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. eeisenhauer@ctg.queensu.ca

European Journal of Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)
|December 23, 2008
PubMed
Summary

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Repression of oxidative phosphorylation by NR2F2, MTERF3 and GDF15 in human skin under high-glucose stress.

Redox biology·2025
Same author

Improving menstrual health literacy in sport.

Journal of science and medicine in sport·2023
Same author

Cost of exome analysis in patients with intellectual disability: a micro-costing study in a French setting.

BMC health services research·2023
Same author

Real-world data in oncology: a questionnaire-based analysis of the academic research landscape examining the policies and experiences of the cancer cooperative groups.

ESMO open·2023
Same author

Biases in study design, implementation, and data analysis that distort the appraisal of clinical benefit and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scoring.

ESMO open·2021
Same author

Barriers to conducting cancer trials in Canada: an analysis of key informant interviews.

Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.)·2020

Revised RECIST 1.1 criteria refine cancer tumor burden assessment by reducing the number of measurable lesions and incorporating lymph nodes. These updates improve the evaluation of treatment response and disease progression in clinical trials.

Area of Science:

  • Oncology
  • Radiology
  • Clinical Trials

Background:

  • The original RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) guidelines, published in 2000, became a standard for assessing tumor burden in cancer therapeutics.
  • Numerous questions and issues arose from the application of RECIST, necessitating a revision to improve clarity and accuracy.
  • Evidence from a large patient data warehouse, simulations, and literature reviews informed the development of the revised RECIST 1.1.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To present the revised RECIST 1.1 guidelines, addressing limitations of the original version.
  • To provide updated criteria for assessing tumor burden, objective response, and disease progression in cancer clinical trials.
  • To incorporate new imaging modalities and refine existing assessment methods.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 27, 2026

Comparison of Predictive Performance of Three Lymph Node Staging Systems in Colorectal Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma Based on Machine Learning Model
07:13

Comparison of Predictive Performance of Three Lymph Node Staging Systems in Colorectal Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma Based on Machine Learning Model

Published on: April 18, 2025

  • Reduction in the maximum number of measurable lesions from 10 to 5 total (2 per organ).
  • Inclusion of pathological lymph nodes (short axis ≥ 15 mm) as measurable target lesions.
  • Clarification of criteria for disease progression, including a 20% increase in the sum of diameters and a 5 mm absolute increase.
  • Inclusion of guidance for 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable disease and assessment of new lesions.
  • Introduction of an imaging appendix with updated recommendations for lesion assessment.

Main Results:

  • RECIST 1.1 reduces the number of lesions to assess, streamlining tumor burden evaluation.
  • Pathological lymph nodes are now incorporated as target lesions, enhancing assessment accuracy.
  • Disease progression criteria are clarified to prevent overcalling progression on small total tumor burdens.
  • Guidance on non-measurable disease progression and new lesion detection is provided.
  • Updated imaging recommendations support optimal lesion assessment.

Conclusions:

  • Anatomical assessment of tumor burden remains the primary method, with no current evidence to abandon it for volumetric or functional assessments.
  • FDG-PET imaging is recognized as a potential adjunct for progression determination, requiring further clinical validation.
  • RECIST 1.1 provides a more refined and comprehensive framework for evaluating cancer treatment efficacy in clinical trials.