S p e c i a l A r t i c l e • P i c t o r i a l E s s ay

Nishino et al.
Revised RECIST Guideline

Special Article
Pictorial Essay

Revised RECIST Guideline Version

Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

1.1: What Oncologists Want to

Know and What Radiologists Need
to Know
Mizuki Nishino1 OBJECTIVE. The objectives of this article are to review the new Response Evaluation
Jyothi P. Jagannathan Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guideline, version 1.1, highlighting the major changes in
Nikhil H. Ramaiya the new version compared with the original RECIST guideline (version 1.0), and to present
Annick D. Van den Abbeele case examples with representative imaging.
CONCLUSION. Familiarity with the revised RECIST is essential in day-to-day oncolog-
Nishino M, Jagannathan JP, Ramaiya NH, Van den ic imaging practice to provide up-to-date service to oncologists and their patients. Some of the
Abbeele AD changes in the revised RECIST affect how radiologists select, measure, and report target lesions.

Keywords: CT, oncologic imaging, response assessment,
Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, RECIST,
RECIST 1.1, tumor measurement
DOI:10.2214/AJR.09.4110
Received December 11, 2009; accepted after revision
January 29, 2010.
M. Nishino is supported by a 2009–2011 Agfa
Healthcare/RSNA research scholar grant.
1
All authors: Department of Imaging, Dana-Farber
Cancer Institute, 44 Binney St., Boston, MA 02115.
Address correspondence to M. Nishino
(Mizuki_Nishino@dfci.harvard.edu).
AJR 2010; 195:281–289
0361–803X/10/1952–281
© American Roentgen Ray Society
O
bjective assessment of the change
in tumor burden is important to
evaluate tumor response to ther-
apy. The Response Evaluation
Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) was in-
troduced in 2000 by an International Work-
ing Party to standardize and simplify tumor
response criteria [1]. Key features of the
original RECIST, version 1.0, included defi-
nitions of the minimum size of measurable
lesions, instructions about how many lesions
to follow, and the use of unidimensional
measures for evaluation of overall tumor bur-
den [1]. RECIST has subsequently been
widely accepted as a standardized measure
of tumor response, particularly in oncologic
clinical trials in which the primary endpoints
are objective response or time to progression
[2]. With rapid technical innovations in im-
aging techniques including MDCT and PET
combined with CT (PET/CT), the limita-
tions of the original RECIST and the need
for revision have become clear [2].
In January 2009, a revised RECIST guide-
line (version 1.1) based on a database consisting
of more than 6,500 patients with greater than
18,000 target lesions was presented by the RE-
CIST Working Group [2–5]. Some of the clini-
cal trials at tertiary cancer centers have already
started to use the revised guideline, RECIST
1.1, instead of the original RECIST 1.0. Aware-
ness and knowledge of the new criteria are es-
sential for radiologists involved in imaging and
response assessment of cancer patients.
In this article, we review the new RECIST
guideline, focusing on the major changes in
the new version compared with the original
RECIST guideline; provide representative
cases in which application of the new RE-
CIST guideline influences the response eval-
uation; and discuss future directions.
Review of the Original RECIST
Guideline
The original RECIST guideline, version
1.0, provided definitions for “measurable le-
sion” and “nonmeasurable lesion” [1]. Mea-
surable lesions must have a longest diameter
of ≥ 10 mm on CT with a slice thickness of
≤ 5 mm (or a longest diameter of ≥ 20 mm on
nonhelical CT with a slice thickness of > 10
mm) or a longest diameter of ≥ 20 mm on
chest radiography [1] (Fig. 1).
Nonmeasurable lesions include other le-
sions that do not meet the criteria as measur-
able lesions, such as small lesions with a lon-
gest diameter of < 10 mm, skeletal metastases
without a soft-tissue component, ascites, pleu-
ral effusion, lymphangitic spread of tumor,
leptomeningeal disease, inflammatory breast
disease, cystic or necrotic lesions, lesions in
an irradiated area, and an abdominal mass not
confirmed by imaging [1] (Fig. 2).
After identifying measurable and non-
measurable lesions according to the guide-
line, target lesions are selected at baseline.
Target lesions include all measurable le-
sions—up to five per organ and 10 total—
and are recorded and measured at baseline
[1]. Target lesions are selected on the basis
of their size (i.e., longest diameter) and suit-
ability for accurate repeated measurements

AJR:195, August 2010 281

 Nishino et al.
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

A B C
Fig. 1—Measurable lesions according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).
A, CT scan of chest in 64-year-old man with colon cancer. Lobulated nodule in left lower lobe representing metastasis measures 2.5 cm in longest diameter (arrow),
meeting criteria for measurable lesion on CT (longest diameter ≥ 10 mm).
B, CT scan of abdomen in 75-year-old woman with lung cancer shows metastatic lesion in liver that measures 2.1 cm in longest diameter (arrow), meeting criteria for
measurable lesion on CT (longest diameter ≥ 10 mm).
C, Frontal chest radiograph in 52-year-old woman shows mass with longest diameter of 4.2 cm (arrow) representing lung cancer, which meets criteria for measurable
lesion on chest radiography (longest diameter ≥ 20 mm).

[1]. The sum of the longest diameters for all
target lesions is recorded and used for objec-
tive tumor response assessment [1] (Fig. 3).
Nontarget lesions include all other lesions
or sites of disease. Measurements of non-
target lesions are not required; however, the
presence or absence of each nontarget lesion
should be noted at baseline and follow-up ex-
aminations [1].
RECIST assigns four categories of re-
sponse: complete response (CR), partial re-
sponse (PR), stable disease (SD), and progres-
sive disease (PD) [1]. The criteria of response
evaluation of target lesions and nontarget le-
sions are summarized in Table 1 with a case
example in Figure 4. Assessment of overall
response is based on the evaluations of target
and nontarget lesions at each follow-up time
point. The measurements and response as-
sessment are often recorded using tumor mea-
surement tables [6] (Fig. 5).

A B C

Fig. 2—Nonmeasurable lesions according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).
A, CT scan of chest in 52-year-old woman with lung cancer shows multiple small nodules in lungs measuring
less than 10 mm; these nodules are miliary metastases.
B, CT scan at level of lung bases in 59-year-old woman with breast cancer shows sclerotic osseous
metastasis (arrow).
C, CT scan of abdomen in 45-year-old man with gastric cancer shows large amount of ascites. Cytology of fluid
was positive for malignant cells, confirming malignant nature of fluid.
D, CT scan of chest in 70-year-old woman with lung cancer shows irregular thickening of interlobular septum and
bronchovascular bundles in lower lobes; these findings are consistent with lymphangitic spread of lung cancer.
D

282 AJR:195, August 2010

 Revised RECIST Guideline

TABLE 1:  Evaluation of Target and Nontarget Lesions by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
(RECIST), Version 1.0
Response Assessment RECIST Guideline, Version 1.0
Evaluation of target lesions
CR Disappearance of all target lesions
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

PR ≥ 30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameters of target lesions compared with baseline
PD ≥ 20% increase in the sum of the longest diameter of target lesions compared with the smallest-sum longest
diameter recorded or the appearance of one or more new lesions
SD Neither PR or PD
Evaluation of nontarget lesions
CR Disappearance of all nontarget lesions and normalization of tumor marker level
Incomplete response, SD Persistence of one or more nontarget lesions and/or the maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits
PD Appearance of one or more new lesions and/or unequivocal progression of existing nontarget lesions
Note—CR = complete response, PR = partial response, PD = progressive disease, SD = stable disease.

A B C
Fig. 3—Target lesions and their measurement.
A–C, CT images of abdomen in 49-year-old woman with metastatic ovarian cancer show three measurable lesions (liver lesion, peritoneal implant, and enlarged iliac
lymph node) that are selected as target lesions. Measurements of target lesions are 1.9 cm (A), 1.6 cm (B), and 3.1 cm (C), totaling 6.0 cm.

A B

Fig. 4—Response assessment.

A and B, Baseline CT scans of abdomen in 68-year-
old man with colon cancer show two target lesions
(arrow) in liver. Measurements according to Response
Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are 4.6
cm (A) and 5.4 cm (B), totaling 10.0 cm.
C and D, Follow-up CT scans obtained after initiation
of therapy show decrease in size of target lesions
(arrow). RECIST measurements are 3.3 cm (C) and 2.7
cm (D), totaling 6.0 cm. Given 40% decrease in sum of
measurements of target lesions relative to baseline
[(10 cm – 6 cm) / 10 cm × 100], assessment of target
lesions by RECIST is partial response.
C C

AJR:195, August 2010 283

 Nishino et al.
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

A B
Fig. 5—Screen shots show tumor measurement record of 46-year-old woman with lung cancer.
A, Tumor measurement record lists target lesions with series and image numbers and measurements at baseline and on follow-up CT scans (red square). Nontarget
lesions (yellow square) are also listed. Sum of longest diameters of all target lesions (blue square) is recorded. Percent changes compared with baseline and nadir
(smallest diameter since baseline, pink square) provide response assessment at each follow-up scan.
B, Graph shows chronologic changes of longest diameters of each target lesion and sum of longest diameters of all target lesions (red line).

Major Imaging-Related Changes in
Revised RECIST Guideline
Major changes in RECIST 1.1 related
to imaging include the following: first, the
number of target lesions; second, assessment
of pathologic lymph nodes; third, clarifica-
tion of disease progression; fourth, clarifica-
tion of unequivocal progression of nontarget
lesions; and, fifth, inclusion of 18F-FDG PET
in the detection of new lesions [2].
Number of Target Lesions
The number of target lesions to be assessed
was reduced from five per organ to two per or-
gan and from a maximum of 10 target lesions
total to a maximum of five total [2] (Figs. 6
and 7). The change is based on the analysis
of a large prospective database from 16 clini-
cal trials that showed that assessment of five
lesions per patient did not influence the over-
all response rate and only minimally affected
progression-free survival [3].
Assessment of Pathologic Lymph Nodes
In RECIST 1.0, there was no clear guide-
line for lymph node measurement. In RECIST
1.1, detailed instructions about how to mea-
sure and assess lymph nodes are provided [2,
5]. Lymph nodes with a short axis of ≥ 15 mm
are considered measurable and assessable as
target lesions, and the short-axis measurement
should be included in the sum of target lesion
measurements in the calculation of tumor re-
sponse as opposed to the longest axis used for
measurements of other target lesions. Lymph
nodes with a short axis of < 10 mm are de-
fined as “nonpathologic” (Fig. 8A). All other
pathologic nodes—that is, those with a short
axis of ≥ 10 mm but < 15 mm—should be
considered nontarget lesions [2] (Fig. 8B).
Given the changes made in the assessment
of pathologic lymph nodes, CR by RECIST 1.1

A B
Fig. 6—Number of target lesions according to revised Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, has been reduced to up to two target lesions
per organ.
A, CT scan of abdomen in 72-year-old woman with pancreatic cancer shows dominant pancreatic mass (single-headed black arrow) with multiple metastatic lesions in
liver. Using RECIST, version 1.0, up to five lesions per organ (white arrows) could be selected. Double-headed black arrows show longest diameter of each lesion.
B, Using RECIST, version 1.1, which allows only up to two lesions per organ, only two liver lesions should be selected as target lesions (white arrows). Double-headed
black arrows show longest diameter of each lesion.

284 AJR:195, August 2010

 Revised RECIST Guideline

requires, first, the disappearance of all target

lesions; and, second, a reduction in the short-
axis measurement of all pathologic lymph
nodes (whether target or nontarget) to < 10 mm
[2]. It is likely that the changes in the lymph
node assessment mainly influence the evalua-
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

tion of patients with epithelial cancers, which

tend to metastasize to the lymph nodes.

Clarification of Disease Progression

PD for target lesions according to RECIST
1.1 requires a 5-mm absolute increase of the
sum of the longest diameters of the target le-
sions in addition to a 20% increase in the sum A
of the target lesions [2] (Fig. 9). The new cri-
terion of a 5-mm absolute change in size is
particularly important in the follow-up assess-
ment of patients with small-volume disease
after response to therapy because a minimal
increase in size due to measurement variabili-
ty could meet the criterion of 20% increase by
RECIST 1.0 without a true increase in tumor
burden in these patients (Fig. 10).

Clarification of Unequivocal Progression of

Nontarget Lesions
RECIST 1.1 further clarifies when one can
assign “unequivocal progression” of nontar-
get lesions in the response assessment [2].
When measurable disease or a target lesion is
present, the overall level of substantial wors-
ening in nontarget disease, which leads to an
increase of overall tumor burden even with
SD or PR in target disease, is required to as-
sign progression [2]. RECIST 1.1 emphasizes
that a modest increase in the size of one or
more nontarget lesions is usually not sufficient
and that progression solely based on change in
nontarget disease in patients with SD or PR of
target disease is extremely rare [2].
If no measurable disease is present, which
may be the case in some phase III trials that
do not require measurable disease as a criteri-
on for study entry, the same general concepts
apply as in cases with measurable disease [2].
An increase of tumor burden that would be re-
quired to declare PD for measurable disease
should be present. Examples include an in-
crease in pleural effusion from trace to large
or an increase in lymphangitic disease from
localized to widespread [2].
Inclusion of FDG PET in the Detection of
New Lesions
One of the major changes in RECIST 1.1
is the inclusion of FDG PET in the detection of
new lesions that define progression [2]. RECIST
1.1 provides a detailed guideline for using
B
Fig. 7—Number of target lesions according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version
1.1, has been reduced to up to five total.
A, CT scans of chest in 74-year-old man with advanced non–small cell lung cancer show multiple enlarged
thoracic and upper abdominal lymph nodes, lesion in right lower lobe of lung, and bilateral adrenal metastases.
Using RECIST 1.0, which allows up to 10 lesions total, all eight lesions (circles) could be selected as target lesions.
B, Using RECIST 1.1, maximum of five lesions (circles) total can be selected to adhere to rule of up to two target
lesions per organ.
FDG PET to detect new lesions, as summa- the tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib, CT at-
rized in Figure 11. The inclusion of FDG tenuation has been used as an important tu-
PET, which evaluates glucose metabolism of mor response parameter. After treatment with
tumor, adds a new functional aspect of re- imatinib, the overall tumor CT attenuation
sponse assessment to RECIST, which has decreases dramatically with development of
been solely based on morphologic assess- myxoid degeneration, hemorrhage, or necro-
ment using size measurements (Fig. 12). sis [7, 8] (Fig. 13). This pattern of response
is important to recognize particularly in the
Issues Remaining to Be Solved context of hepatic metastases because appar-
Despite the significant revisions made in ent “new lesions” may appear in response to
RECIST 1.1, many issues remain to be solved therapy. These lesions are initially isodense
in the response assessment of tumors in day- to the hepatic parenchyma but become hy-
to-day practice. Examples of such problems podense (and therefore visible) in response to
that are discussed in this section include, first, therapy and should not be confused with new
the CT attenuation measurement (known as lesions and misinterpreted for PD. If there is
the Choi criteria [7, 8]) in gastrointestinal any ambiguity regarding the CT interpreta-
stromal tumor (GIST); second, intratumor- tion, FDG PET can help resolve this and con-
al hemorrhage in response to treatment; and, firm that there is no metabolic activity within
third, cavitation of lung lesions. these masses. Choi response criteria, defined
as a 10% decrease in the unidimensional tu-
CT Attenuation in Gastrointestinal mor size or a 15% decrease in CT attenua-
Stromal Tumor tion, have been shown to correlate well with
In patients with GIST naive to any molecu- response by FDG PET and to be more pre-
lar targeted therapy and initially treated with dictive of time to progression than response

AJR:195, August 2010 285

 Nishino et al.
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

A B
Fig. 8—Assessment of pathologic lymph nodes by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1.
A, CT scan of patient with lung cancer. Subcarinal lymph node measures 12 mm in short axis (arrow) on chest CT, so it should be considered as nontarget lesion according
to RECIST 1.1.
B, CT scan of patient with lung cancer. Precarinal lymph node measures 7 mm in short axis (arrow). Given that short-axis diameter is less than 10 mm, lymph node is
nonpathologic according to RECIST 1.1.

Fig. 9—Clarification of disease progression. Target lesion at baseline (A) has longest
diameter of 3.0 cm. On follow-up study after initiation of therapy (B), lesion measures
1.0 cm—showing 67% decrease in size compared with baseline. This finding is
consistent with partial response. On further follow-up study (C), lesion has slightly
increased in size and measures 1.3 cm. Because 30% increase in size of lesion since
smallest diameter (nadir) of 1.0 cm, assessment category according to Response
Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 would be progressive disease and
therapy would be terminated. However, using RECIST 1.1, which requires 5-mm
absolute increase in size in addition to > 20% increase, assessment would be stable
disease and therapy would be continued. If further follow-up showed increase to
diameter of 1.6 cm (D), then criteria for progressive disease according to RECIST 1.1
would be met—that is, > 5 mm absolute increase in size in addition to > 20% increase
compared with nadir.

Fig. 10—Clarification of disease progression

A B
C D
in 55-year-old woman with non–small cell lung
carcinoma treated with epidermal growth factor
receptor inhibitor erlotinib.
A, CT scan of chest shows spiculated right lung
lesion, which was only target lesion, has longest
diameter of 2.8 cm (arrow).
B, After one cycle of therapy, lesion measures 1.3
cm (arrow), showing 54% decrease in size compared
with baseline. This change is consistent with partial
response.
C, After initial response, small residual tumor slowly
increased in size and measured 1.7 cm (arrow)
on further follow-up study. Given 30% increase
compared with nadir (1.3 cm), assessment using
Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
(RECIST) 1.0 would be progressive disease and
therapy would be terminated. However, using RECIST
1.1, assessment is stable disease because absolute
increase in size is less than 5 mm.
D, Another follow-up CT scan shows further increase
in size of residual tumor with longest diameter of
2.0 cm (arrow), which meets criteria for progressive
disease by RECIST 1.1 given 54% increase and 6-mm
absolute increase in size compared with nadir.

286 AJR:195, August 2010

 Revised RECIST Guideline

Fig. 11—Summary of guideline for including FDG PET in

detection of new lesions according to Response Evaluation
Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. PD = progressive
disease.
Patient had a negative FDG PET Patient had no FDG PET at baseline
at baseline and had a positive and had a positive FDG PET at
FDG PET at follow-up follow-up
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

by RECIST 1.0 [8]. Similar criteria using CT

attenuation have been shown to be useful for PD due to a new lesion New site of disease New site of disease
response assessment in soft-tissue sarcomas by PET is confirmed by PET is not
other than GIST and in carcinomas [9, 10]. It by CT confirmed by CT
is important to note that, in patients with GIST
after the initial response to imatinib, recurrent
disease may show a “nodule-within-a-mass” PD Additional follow-up
CT scans to confirm
pattern that cannot be detected as PD using progression at that site
conventional size measurements alone [11].

Paradoxical Increase of Tumor Size in PD if progression is Not PD if positive FDG PET at

Response to Therapy Due to Hemorrhage
or Necrosis
Targeted anticancer therapy using antian-
giogenesis agents or tyrosine kinase inhibitors
is known to cause a paradoxical increase of
tumor size despite response because of hem-
orrhage or necrosis. This phenomenon is often
seen in liver tumors, including hepatocellular
carcinoma and liver metastasis from GIST or
melanoma [11, 12]. A paradoxical increase in
size in the setting of hemorrhage or necrosis in
responding tumors should not be mistaken for
PD, and MRI can be performed to confirm the
presence of these intratumoral changes (Fig.
14). FDG PET can also help confirm metabol-
ic response in these tumor masses despite the
apparent increase in size. Radiologists must
be aware of this phenomenon to avoid misin-
terpretation and to prompt appropriate further
evaluation by MRI or PET/CT.
confirmed and the date follow-up corresponds to a pre-
of progression will be the existing site of disease on CT
date of the FDG PET that is not progressing on the
anatomic images
Cavitation of Lung Lesions incorporating cavitation into tumor measure-
Cavitation of lung lesions is commonly ob- ment; however, further prospective study is
served, especially in non–small cell lung can- needed to validate this hypothesis.
cer treated with antiangiogenic agents such as
vascular endothelial growth factor receptor Future Directions: Volume and
inhibitors [13, 14]. Cavitation of lung lesions Functional Assessment
provides a challenge to radiologists who try to Recent rapid progress in MDCT technol-
obtain the appropriate measurement that best ogy has enabled scanning of large anatomic
represents tumor burden. Rather than simply volumes in a single breath-hold with isotro-
measuring the longest diameter of a lesion pic voxels and high resolution. Three-dimen-
including the area of cavitation, an alterna- sional methods for nodule and tumor volume
tive measurement that excludes the area of measurement—aiming for more accurate
cavitation has been proposed [14] (Fig. 15). and consistent tumor measurement and bet-
Response assessment might be improved by ter determination of temporal change in a

A B
Fig. 12—FDG PET in detection of new lesions in 48-year-old woman with breast cancer who had negative FDG PET/CT findings at baseline.
A and B, Follow-up FDG PET/CT images show new FDG-avid liver lesion (arrows) representing metastasis. Finding meets criteria for progressive disease using Response
Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 because new lesion has been detected on FDG PET.

AJR:195, August 2010 287

 Nishino et al.
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

A B
Fig. 13—CT attenuation decrease in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib.
A, CT scan of abdomen in 59-year-old man with gastric GIST shows circumferential mass involving gastric wall (white arrows) and multiple liver masses (black arrows)
representing metastases.
B, Follow-up CT scan of abdomen shows markedly decreased CT attenuation in both gastric and liver lesions (arrows). According to Choi criteria, these changes in CT
attenuation indicate response to imatinib therapy.

A B

C D
Fig. 14—Paradoxical increase in size of target lesions after targeted therapy in 69-year-old woman with melanoma.
A, Baseline CT scan of abdomen shows two metastatic lesions in liver.
B, Follow-up CT scan obtained after treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitor, sorafenib, shows increase in size of metastatic liver lesions, measuring 3.9 cm at follow-up
compared with 2.8 cm at baseline and 2.9 cm compared with 1.7 cm at baseline. Note heterogeneous CT attenuation within liver lesions.
C and D, MR images of abdomen show central high signal intensity of lesions (arrows) with surrounding hypointense rim on unenhanced T1-weighted image (C) and
without enhancement on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted image (D).

288 AJR:195, August 2010

 Revised RECIST Guideline

Fig. 15—Cavitation of lung lesions. CT scan of chest in 78-year-old woman with

non–small cell lung cancer shows large cavitary lung lesion. Longest diameter of
lesion according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) is 4.7 cm
(black arrow). Modified measurement that has been proposed would incorporate
cavitation into calculation by subtracting diameter of cavity (2.2 cm) (white arrow)
from longest diameter of entire lesion, which would give measurement of 2.5 cm
(4.7 – 2.2 cm = 2.5 cm).
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

shorter interval—have been developed [15].
Advanced functional imaging tools such as
PET/CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced
MRI have become available in clinical prac-
tice and are attracting attention as promising
methods for response assessment of tumor.
Given this background, the RECIST Work-
ing Group addresses the thought that it might
be time to move from anatomic unidimen-
sional assessment to volumetric or function-
al assessment in RECIST 1.1 [2]. However,
they concluded that sufficient standardiza-
tion and widespread availability are needed
to recommend assessment method alterna-
tives to conventional size measurement.
Conclusion
Familiarity with the revised RECIST
guideline is essential in day-to-day cancer
imaging practice to provide adequate up-to-
date service to oncologists and their patients.
Some of the major changes in the revised
RECIST 1.1 affect how radiologists select,
measure, and report target lesions. Further
standardization is needed for volumetric
and functional imaging tools to be consid-
ered part of the routine methods of tumor re-
sponse assessment.
References
1. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al.
New guidelines to evaluate the response to treat-
ment in solid tumors. European Organization for
Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Can-
cer Institute of the United States, National Cancer
Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;
92:205–216
2. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New
response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: re-
vised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Can-
cer 2009; 45:228–247
3. Bogaerts J, Ford R, Sargent D, et al. Individual pa-
tient data analysis to assess modifications to the
RECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45:248–260
4. Moskowitz CS, Jia X, Schwartz LH, Gönen M. A
simulation study to evaluate the impact of the
number of lesions measured on response assess-
ment. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45:300–310
5. Schwartz LH, Bogaerts J, Ford R, et al. Evaluation
of lymph nodes with RECIST 1.1. Eur J Cancer
2009; 45:261–267
6. Suzuki C, Jacobsson H, Hatschek T, et al. Radio-
logic measurements of tumor response to treat-
ment: practical approaches and limitations. Ra-
dioGraphics 2008; 28:329–344
7. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, de Castro Faria S, et al.
CT evaluation of the response of gastrointestinal
stromal tumors after imatinib mesylate treatment:
a quantitative analysis correlated with FDG PET
findings. AJR 2004; 183:1619–1628
8. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, et al. Corre-
lation of computed tomography and positron
emission tomography in patients with metastatic
gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single
institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of
new computed tomography response criteria. J
Clin Oncol 2007; 25:1753–1759
9. Stacchiotti S, Collini P, Messina A, et al. High-
grade soft-tissue sarcomas: tumor response as-
sessment—pilot study to assess the correlation
between radiologic and pathologic response by
using RECIST and Choi criteria. Radiology 2009;
251:447–456
10. Keppke AL, Salem R, Reddy D, et al. Imaging of
hepatocellular carcinoma after treatment with yt-
trium-90 microspheres. AJR 2007; 188:768–775
11. Shankar S, vanSonnenberg E, Desai J, Dipiro PJ,
Van Den Abbeele A, Demetri GD. Gastrointesti-
nal stromal tumor: new nodule-within-a-mass
pattern of recurrence after partial response to
imatinib mesylate. Radiology 2005; 235:892–898
12. Horger M, Lauer UM, Schraml C, et al. Early
MRI response monitoring of patients with ad-
vanced hepatocellular carcinoma under treatment
with the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib. BMC
Cancer 2009; 9:208
13. Marom EM, Martinez CH, Truong MT, et al. Tu-
mor cavitation during therapy with antiangiogen-
esis agents in patients with lung cancer. J Thorac
Oncol 2008; 3:351–357
14. Crabb SJ, Patsios D, Sauerbrei E, et al. Tumor
cavitation: impact on objective response evalua-
tion in trials of angiogenesis inhibitors in non-
small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:
404–410
15. Zhao B, Schwartz LH, Larson SM. Imaging sur-
rogates of tumor response to therapy: anatomic
and functional biomarkers. J Nucl Med 2009;
50:239–249

AJR:195, August 2010 289

 This article has been cited by:

1. Dylan J. Martini, Yuan Liu, Julie M. Shabto, Colleen Lewis, Meredith R. Kline, Hannah Collins, Mehmet Akce, Haydn T.
Kissick, Bradley C. Carthon, Walid L. Shaib, Olatunji B. Alese, Rathi N. Pillai, Conor E. Steuer, Christina S. Wu, David H.
Lawson, Ragini R. Kudchadkar, Viraj A. Master, Bassel F. El-Rayes, Suresh S. Ramalingam, Taofeek K. Owonikoko, R. Donald
Harvey, Mehmet Asim Bilen. 2019. Clinical outcomes of advanced stage cancer patients treated with sequential immunotherapy
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

in phase 1 clinical trials. Investigational New Drugs 37:6, 1198-1206. [Crossref]

2. Trevor A. Flood, Kevin Hogan, Luke T. Lavallée, Rodney H. Breau, Chris Morash, Eric C. Belanger, Nicola Schieda. 2019.
Evaluation of individual and cumulative sites of extrarenal tumor invasion in pT3a clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Urologic
Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations . [Crossref]
3. Dylan J. Martini, Meredith R. Kline, Yuan Liu, Julie M. Shabto, Milton A. Williams, Amir Ishaq Khan, Colleen Lewis, Hannah
Collins, Mehmet Akce, Haydn T. Kissick, Bradley C. Carthon, Walid L. Shaib, Olatunji B. Alese, Rathi N. Pillai, Conor E.
Steuer, Christina S. Wu, David H. Lawson, Ragini R. Kudchadkar, Bassel F. El‐Rayes, Suresh S. Ramalingam, Taofeek K.
Owonikoko, R. Donald Harvey, Viraj A. Master, Mehmet Asim Bilen. 2019. Adiposity may predict survival in patients with
advanced stage cancer treated with immunotherapy in phase 1 clinical trials. Cancer 30. . [Crossref]
4. Hyesun Park, Lynette M. Sholl, Hiroto Hatabu, Mark M. Awad, Mizuki Nishino. 2019. Imaging of Precision Therapy for
Lung Cancer: Current State of the Art. Radiology 293:1, 15-29. [Crossref]
5. Michele Guida, Nicola Bartolomeo, Ivana De Risi, Livia Fucci, Andrea Armenio, Ruggero Filannino, Eustachio Ruggieri,
Francesco Macina, Michele Traversa, Annalisa Nardone, Francesco Figliuolo, Federica De Luca, Fabio Mele, Stefania Tommasi,
Sabino Strippoli. 2019. The Management of Oligoprogression in the Landscape of New Therapies for Metastatic Melanoma.
Cancers 11:10, 1559. [Crossref]
6. Ezgi Guler, Daniel A. Smith, Bhanusupriya Somarouthu, Rahul Gujrathi, Nikhil H. Ramaiya, Sree Harsha Tirumani. 2019.
Overview of imaging findings associated with systemic therapies in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Abdominal Radiology
68. . [Crossref]
7. Sonia Mahajan, Christopher A. Barker, Bhuvanesh Singh, Neeta Pandit-Taskar. 2019. Clinical value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT
in staging cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Nuclear Medicine Communications 40:7, 744-751. [Crossref]
8. Richard Thomas, Bhanusupriya Somarouthu, Francesco Alessandrino, Vikram Kurra, Atul B. Shinagare. 2019. Atypical
Response Patterns in Patients Treated With Nivolumab. American Journal of Roentgenology 212:6, 1177-1181. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
9. Pascale Mariani, Sylvain Dureau, Alexia Savignoni, Livia Lumbroso-Le Rouic, Christine Levy-Gabriel, Sophie Piperno-
Neumann, Manuel J. Rodrigues, Laurence Desjardins, Nathalie Cassoux, Vincent Servois. 2019. Development of a Prognostic
Nomogram for Liver Metastasis of Uveal Melanoma Patients Selected by Liver MRI. Cancers 11:6, 863. [Crossref]
10. Carole Durot, Sébastien Mulé, Philippe Soyer, Aude Marchal, Florent Grange, Christine Hoeffel. 2019. Metastatic
melanoma: pretreatment contrast-enhanced CT texture parameters as predictive biomarkers of survival in patients treated with
pembrolizumab. European Radiology 29:6, 3183-3191. [Crossref]
11. Francesca Patella, Filippo Pesapane, Enrico Fumarola, Stefania Zannoni, Pietro Brambillasca, Ilaria Emili, Guido Costa, Victoria
Anderson, Elliot B Levy, Gianpaolo Carrafiello, Bradford J Wood. 2019. Assessment of the response of hepatocellular carcinoma
to interventional radiology treatments. Future Oncology 15:15, 1791-1804. [Crossref]
12. Kirsten Lauber, Lara Dunn. 2019. Immunotherapy Mythbusters in Head and Neck Cancer: The Abscopal Effect and
Pseudoprogression. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book :39, 352-363. [Crossref]
13. Lei Zhao, Jing Wang, Huihui Li, Juanjuan Che, Nina Ma, Bangwei Cao. 2019. Safety and Efficacy of Tianfoshen Oral Liquid
in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients as an Adjuvant Therapy. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
2019, 1-7. [Crossref]
14. Hyun Mu Shin, Youngjun Ju, Gwanghun Kim, Jae Won Lee, Myung Won Seo, Ji Hyun Sim, Jusang Yang, Sora Noh, Jungbae
Kim, Hang‐Rae Kim. 2019. Recyclable Cytokines on Short and Injectable Polylactic Acid Fibers for Enhancing T‐Cell Function.
Advanced Functional Materials 29:14, 1808361. [Crossref]
15. Khodamorad Jamshidi, Mehdi Ramezan Shirazi, Abolfazl Bagherifard, Alireza Mirzaei. 2019. Curettage, phenolization, and
cementation in paediatric Ewing’s sarcoma with a complete radiological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. International
Orthopaedics 43:2, 467-473. [Crossref]
16. Mizuki Nishino, Hiroto Hatabu, F. Stephen Hodi. 2019. Imaging of Cancer Immunotherapy: Current Approaches and Future
Directions. Radiology 290:1, 9-22. [Crossref]
 17. Shanshan Fan, Guanfei Zhao, Guangyu An. 2019. High pretreatment plasma D-dimer levels are associated with shorter overall
survival in patients with small cell lung cancer. Journal of International Medical Research 47:1, 215-224. [Crossref]
18. B Lee, L Lipton, J Cohen, J Tie, A A Javed, L Li, D Goldstein, M Burge, P Cooray, A Nagrial, N C Tebbutt, B Thomson,
M Nikfarjam, M Harris, A Haydon, B Lawrence, D W M Tai, K Simons, A M Lennon, C L Wolfgang, C Tomasetti,
N Papadopoulos, K W Kinzler, B Vogelstein, P Gibbs. 2019. Circulating tumor DNA as a potential marker of adjuvant
chemotherapy benefit following surgery for localized pancreatic cancer. Annals of Oncology 30:9, 1472. [Crossref]
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

19. Mizuki Nishino, Satoshi Wakai, Tomoyuki Hida, Suzanne E. Dahlberg, Masahiro Ozaki, Hiroto Hatabu, Hisashi Tachizaki,
Bruce E. Johnson. 2018. Automated image analysis tool for tumor volume growth rate to guide precision cancer therapy: EGFR-
mutant non-small-cell lung cancer as a paradigm. European Journal of Radiology 109, 68-76. [Crossref]
20. Carl Morrison, Sarabjot Pabla, Jeffrey M. Conroy, Mary K. Nesline, Sean T. Glenn, Devin Dressman, Antonios Papanicolau-
Sengos, Blake Burgher, Jonathan Andreas, Vincent Giamo, Moachun Qin, Yirong Wang, Felicia L. Lenzo, Angela Omilian,
Wiam Bshara, Matthew Zibelman, Pooja Ghatalia, Konstantin Dragnev, Keisuke Shirai, Katherine G. Madden, Laura J. Tafe,
Neel Shah, Deepa Kasuganti, Luis de la Cruz-Merino, Isabel Araujo, Yvonne Saenger, Margaret Bogardus, Miguel Villalona-
Calero, Zuanel Diaz, Roger Day, Marcia Eisenberg, Steven M. Anderson, Igor Puzanov, Lorenzo Galluzzi, Mark Gardner, Marc
S. Ernstoff. 2018. Predicting response to checkpoint inhibitors in melanoma beyond PD-L1 and mutational burden. Journal
for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer 6:1. . [Crossref]
21. Min Kang, Meiping Ren, Yan Li, Yuqiong Fu, Minmin Deng, Changping Li. 2018. Exosome-mediated transfer of lncRNA
PART1 induces gefitinib resistance in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma via functioning as a competing endogenous RNA.
Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research 37:1. . [Crossref]
22. Inga H. Rye, Anne Trinh, Anna B. Saetersdal, Daniel Nebdal, Ole Christian Lingjaerde, Vanessa Almendro, Kornelia Polyak,
Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale, Åslaug Helland, Florian Markowetz, Hege G. Russnes. 2018. Intratumor heterogeneity defines
treatment-resistant HER2+ breast tumors. Molecular Oncology 12:11, 1838-1855. [Crossref]
23. D. Zhang, Q. Zhang, S. Suo, Z. Zhuang, L. Li, J. Lu, J. Hua. 2018. Apparent diffusion coefficient measurement in luminal
breast cancer: will tumour shrinkage patterns affect its efficacy of evaluating the pathological response?. Clinical Radiology
73:10, 909.e7-909.e14. [Crossref]
24. A. W. Olthof, J. Borstlap, W. W. Roeloffzen, P. M. C. Callenbach, P. M. A. van Ooijen. 2018. Improvement of radiology
reporting in a clinical cancer network: impact of an optimised multidisciplinary workflow. European Radiology 28:10, 4274-4280.
[Crossref]
25. Alexandra Gangi, Jehan Shah, Nathan Hatfield, Johnna Smith, Jennifer Sweeney, Junsung Choi, Ghassan El-Haddad, Benjamin
Biebel, Nainesh Parikh, Bulent Arslan, Sarah E. Hoffe, Jessica M. Frakes, Gregory M. Springett, Daniel A. Anaya, Mokenge
Malafa, Dung-Tsa Chen, Yunyun Chen, Richard D. Kim, Ravi Shridhar, Bela Kis. 2018. Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
Treated with Transarterial Yttrium-90 Glass Microsphere Radioembolization: Results of a Single Institution Retrospective
Study. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology 29:8, 1101-1108. [Crossref]
26. Hyun Jung Koo, Mi Young Kim, Sojung Park, Han Na Lee, Hwa Jung Kim, Jae Cheol Lee, Sang-We Kim, Dae Ho Lee,
Chang-Min Choi. 2018. Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer with Resistance to EGFR-TKI Therapy: CT Characteristics of T790M
Mutation–positive Cancer. Radiology 180070. [Crossref]
27. Yuhui Liu, Xibin Liu, Liang Xu, Liheng Liu, Yuhong Sun, Minghuan Li, Haiyan Zeng, Shuanghu Yuan, Jinming Yu. 2018.
Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of treatment efficacy and prognosis for brain metastases in lung cancer patients after
radiotherapy: A preliminary study. Thoracic Cancer 9:7, 865-873. [Crossref]
28. Meng-Yu Wu, Yueh-Tseng Hou, Giou-Teng Yiang. 2018. Acute Retroperitoneal Hemorrhage Induced by Giant Adrenal
Myelolipoma Mimicking Renal Colic Pain: A Case Report. Reports 1:1, 4. [Crossref]
29. Qiaohong Wang, Jingze Gao, Xia Wu. 2018. Pseudoprogression and hyperprogression after checkpoint blockade. International
Immunopharmacology 58, 125-135. [Crossref]
30. Edith Borcoman, Amara Nandikolla, Georgina Long, Sanjay Goel, Christophe Le Tourneau. 2018. Patterns of Response and
Progression to Immunotherapy. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book :38, 169-178. [Crossref]
31. Kaustav Bera, Vamsidhar Velcheti, Anant Madabhushi. 2018. Novel Quantitative Imaging for Predicting Response to Therapy:
Techniques and Clinical Applications. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book :38, 1008-1018. [Crossref]
32. Mizuki Nishino. 2018. Tumor Response Assessment for Precision Cancer Therapy: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid
Tumors and Beyond. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book :38, 1019-1029. [Crossref]
33. Johanna Uthoff, Jessica C. Sieren. Information theory optimization based feature selection in breast mammography lesion
classification 817-821. [Crossref]
 34. Venessa Chin, Adnan Nagrial, Katrin Sjoquist, Chelsie A O'Connor, Lorraine Chantrill, Andrew V Biankin, Rob JPM Scholten,
Desmond Yip. 2018. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
24. . [Crossref]
35. Huong T. Le-Petross, Linda M. McCall, Kelly K. Hunt, Elizabeth A. Mittendorf, Gretchen M. Ahrendt, Lee G. Wilke, Karla
V. Ballman, Judy C. Boughey. 2018. Axillary Ultrasound Identifies Residual Nodal Disease After Chemotherapy: Results From
the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1071 Trial (Alliance). American Journal of Roentgenology 210:3, 669-676.
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]

36. Masood Umer, Yasir Mohib, Muhammed Atif, Muhammad Nazim. 2018. Skeletal metastasis in renal cell carcinoma: A review.
Annals of Medicine and Surgery 27, 9-16. [Crossref]
37. Tasnime Hamdeni, Farhat Fnaiech, Soufiane Gasmi, Jean-Marc Ginoux, Roomila Naeck, Moez Bouchouicha, Asma Ben
Khedher Zidi, Frederick Tshibasu. Overview and definitions on lung cancer diagnosis 165-170. [Crossref]
38. Jennifer Feneis, Seth Kligerman, Elizabeth Weihe. Radiographic Evaluation of Immunotherapy 115-131. [Crossref]
39. Lejla Aganovic, Richard H. Cohan. Renal Tumors 1-11. [Crossref]
40. Arkadios Chr. Rousakis, John A. Andreou. Imaging Criteria for Tumor Treatment Response Evaluation 11-23. [Crossref]
41. Andreas P. Koureas. US-CT-MRI Findings: Staging-Response-Restaging of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors 95-102. [Crossref]
42. Léonor Benhaim, Mostafa El Hajjam, Robert Malafosse, Jacques Sellier, Catherine Julie, Alain Beauchet, Bernard Nordlinger,
Frédérique Peschaud. 2018. Radiofrequency ablation for colorectal cancer liver metastases initially greater than 25  mm but
downsized by neo-adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased rate of local tumor progression. HPB 20:1, 76-82.
[Crossref]
43. A. V. Fedash, K. H. Lomovtseva, E. V. Kondrat'ev, I. A. Blohin, Yu. S. Galchina. 2017. Treatment Response Evaluation in
Hepatic Tumors using CT and MRI: Road Map for Radiologist. Medical Visualization :6, 49-62. [Crossref]
44. Michael J. Campbell, Mary Obasi, Bingling Wu, Michael T. Corwin, Ghaneh Fananapazir. 2017. The radiographically diagnosed
adrenal myelolipoma: what do we really know?. Endocrine 58:2, 289-294. [Crossref]
45. M.S. Chung, Y.J. Choi, S.S. Lee, J.H. Lee, Y.S. Lee, J.L. Rho, J.H. Baek. 2017. Interobserver reproducibility of maximal
axial diameter and tumour volume measurements from CT of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clinical
Radiology 72:11, 993.e7-993.e13. [Crossref]
46. Nicolas Gengenbacher, Mahak Singhal, Hellmut G. Augustin. 2017. Preclinical mouse solid tumour models: status quo,
challenges and perspectives. Nature Reviews Cancer 17:12, 751-765. [Crossref]
47. Koji Ando, Yasunori Emi, Toyokuni Suenaga, Masahiro Hamanoue, Soichiro Maekawa, Yasuo Sakamoto, Seiichiro Kai,
Hironaga Satake, Takayuki Shimose, Mototsugu Shimokawa, Hiroshi Saeki, Eiji Oki, Kenji Sakai, Yoshito Akagi, Hideo Baba,
Yoshihiko Maehara. 2017. A prospective study of XELIRI plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy in Japanese patients with
unresectable or recurrent colorectal cancer (KSCC1101). International Journal of Clinical Oncology 22:5, 913-920. [Crossref]
48. Michael Frelinghuysen, Wilco Schillemans, Lieke Hol, Cornelis Verhoef, Mischa Hoogeman, Joost Jan Nuyttens. 2017. Acute
Toxicity of the bowel after stereotactic robotic radiotherapy for abdominopelvic oligometastases. Acta Oncologica 33, 1-5.
[Crossref]
49. Nicola Schieda, Satheesh Krishna, Matthew D. F. McInnes, Bardia Moosavi, Abdulmohsen Alrashed, Robert Moreland, Evan S.
Siegelman. 2017. Utility of MRI to Differentiate Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Adrenal Metastases From Adrenal Adenomas.
American Journal of Roentgenology 209:3, W152-W159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
50. Gary X. Wang, Lan Qian Guo, Justin F. Gainor, Florian J. Fintelmann. 2017. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Lung Cancer:
Imaging Considerations. American Journal of Roentgenology 209:3, 567-575. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
51. Yukiya Narita, Shigenori Kadowaki, Toshiki Masuishi, Hiroya Taniguchi, Daisuke Takahari, Takashi Ura, Masashi Ando,
Masahiro Tajika, Yasumasa Niwa, Tetsuya Eto, Hiroki Hara, Masako Asayama, Kensei Yamaguchi, Yasushi Yatabe, Kei Muro.
2017. Correlation between human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 expression level and efficacy of trastuzumab beyond
progression in metastatic gastric cancer. Oncology Letters 14:2, 2545-2551. [Crossref]
52. Mizuki Nishino, Nikhil H. Ramaiya, Hiroto Hatabu, F. Stephen Hodi. 2017. Monitoring immune-checkpoint blockade:
response evaluation and biomarker development. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 14:11, 655-668. [Crossref]
53. Orlando Catalano. 2017. Cancer Measurement at Ultrasound. Ultrasound Quarterly 33:2, 116-124. [Crossref]
54. Mizuki Nishino, Adrian G. Sacher, Leena Gandhi, Zhao Chen, Esra Akbay, Andriy Fedorov, Carl F. Westin, Hiroto Hatabu,
Bruce E. Johnson, Peter Hammerman, Kwok-kin Wong. 2017. Co-clinical quantitative tumor volume imaging in ALK-
rearranged NSCLC treated with crizotinib. European Journal of Radiology 88, 15-20. [Crossref]
 55. Bela Kis, Jehan Shah, Junsung Choi, Ghassan El-Haddad, Jennifer Sweeney, Benjamin Biebel, Eric Mellon, Jessica M.
Frakes, Sarah E. Hoffe, Mayer N. Fishman, Ravi Shridhar. 2017. Transarterial Yttrium-90 Radioembolization Treatment of
Patients with Liver-Dominant Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology 28:2, 254-259.
[Crossref]
56. Marta Braschi-Amirfarzan, Sree Harsha Tirumani, Frank Stephen Hodi, Mizuki Nishino. 2017. Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors
in the Era of Precision Medicine: What Radiologists Should Know. Korean Journal of Radiology 18:1, 42. [Crossref]
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

57. Diana Spiegelberg, Johan Nilvebrant. 2017. CD44v6-Targeted Imaging of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma:
Antibody-Based Approaches. Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging 2017, 1-14. [Crossref]
58. Mizuki Nishino. 2016. Immune-related response evaluations during immune-checkpoint inhibitor therapy: establishing a
“common language” for the new arena of cancer treatment. Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer 4:1. . [Crossref]
59. Mizuki Nishino, Nikhil H. Ramaiya, Emily S. Chambers, Anika E. Adeni, Hiroto Hatabu, Pasi A. Jänne, F. Stephen Hodi,
Mark M. Awad. 2016. Immune-related response assessment during PD-1 inhibitor therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung
cancer patients. Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer 4:1. . [Crossref]
60. Brad J. Greenfield, Sergio Jaramillo, Mirna Abboud, Anita Mahajan, Arnold C. Paulino, Susan McGovern, Mary F. McAleer,
Murali Chintagumpala, M. Fatih Okcu, Soumen Khatua, Jack Su, David R. Grosshans. 2016. Outcomes for pediatric patients
with central nervous system germ cell tumors treated with proton therapy. Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology 1,
9-14. [Crossref]
61. Chong Hyun Suh, Sree H Tirumani, Abhishek Keraliya, Kyung Won Kim, Nikhil H Ramaiya, Atul B Shinagare. 2016.
Molecular targeted therapy in gynaecologic malignancies: primer for radiologists. The British Journal of Radiology 89:1066,
20160086. [Crossref]
62. Xi Jiang, Jiayi Zhao, Chengguang Bai, Enhong Xu, Zhenhao Chen, Yiping Han. 2016. Small-cell lung cancer with recurrent
syncope as the�initial symptom: A case report and literature review. Molecular and Clinical Oncology . [Crossref]
63. P. Lo, S. Young, H. J. Kim, M. S. Brown, M. F. McNitt-Gray. 2016. Variability in CT lung-nodule quantification: Effects
of dose reduction and reconstruction methods on density and texture based features. Medical Physics 43:8Part1, 4854-4865.
[Crossref]
64. Chunlei Xu, Xushan Tang, Yanli Qu, Saifuding Keyoumu, Ning Zhou, Yong Tang. 2016. UGT1A1 gene polymorphism is
associated with toxicity and clinical efficacy of irinotecan-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Cancer
Chemotherapy and Pharmacology 78:1, 119-130. [Crossref]
65. Tayfun Toptas, Elif Pestereli, Onur Erol, Selen Bozkurt, Gulgun Erdogan, Tayup Simsek. 2016. Validation of Revised
FIGO Staging Classification for Cancer of the Ovary, Fallopian Tube, and Peritoneum Based on a Single Histological Type.
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 26:6, 1012-1019. [Crossref]
66. Michelle Dang, Rachel E. Henderson, Levi A. Garraway, Leonard I. Zon. 2016. Long-term drug administration in the adult
zebrafish using oral gavage for cancer preclinical studies. Disease Models & Mechanisms 9:7, 811-820. [Crossref]
67. Ákos Horváth, Péter Wolf, János Nagy, Attila Kelemen, Gábor Horváth, Dániel Hadházi, Áron Horváth, Benjámin
Czétényi, Zoltán Süttő, Klára Szondy. 2016. OVERVIEW OF A DIGITAL TOMOSYNTHESIS DEVELOPMENT: NEW
APPROACHES FOR LOW-DOSE CHEST IMAGING. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 169:1-4, 171-176. [Crossref]
68. Akshay D. Baheti, Ryan B. O'Malley, Sooah Kim, Abhishek R. Keraliya, Sree Harsha Tirumani, Nikhil H. Ramaiya, Carolyn
L. Wang. 2016. Soft-Tissue Sarcomas: An Update for Radiologists Based on the Revised 2013 World Health Organization
Classification. American Journal of Roentgenology 206:5, 924-932. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
69. Hong Suk Park, Young Soo Do, Kwang Bo Park, Keon-Ha Kim, Sook Young Woo, Sin-Ho Jung, Dong-Ik Kim, Young Wook
Kim, Dongho Hyun, Sung Ki Cho, In Wook Choo. 2016. Clinical outcome and predictors of treatment response in foam
sodium tetradecyl sulfate sclerotherapy of venous malformations. European Radiology 26:5, 1301-1310. [Crossref]
70. Rita Y.W. Chiu, Wan W. Yap, Roshni Patel, David Liu, Darren Klass, Alison C. Harris. 2016. Hepatocellular Carcinoma Post
Embolotherapy: Imaging Appearances and Pitfalls on Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Canadian
Association of Radiologists Journal 67:2, 158-172. [Crossref]
71. Mastura Md Yusof, Nik MA Abdullah, MSN Mohd Sharial, Adel Zaatar. 2016. Safety and Management of Toxicity Related
to Aflibercept in Combination with Fluorouracil, Leucovorin and Irinotecan in Malaysian Patients with Metastatic Colorectal
Cancer. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 17:3, 973-978. [Crossref]
72. Yutaka Ogata, Mototsugu Shimokawa, Takaho Tanaka, Yasunori Emi, Eiji Oki, Hiroshi Saeki, Noriaki Sadanaga, Tetsuya
Kusumoto, Tetsuo Touyama, Masami Kimura, Hideo Baba, Yoshito Akagi, Kazuo Shirouzu, Yoshihiko Maehara. 2016. A
 prospective study of XELOX plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy in Japanese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (KSCC
0902). International Journal of Clinical Oncology 21:2, 335-343. [Crossref]
73. Mizuki Nishino, Suzanne E. Dahlberg, Linnea E. Fulton, Subba R. Digumarthy, Hiroto Hatabu, Bruce E. Johnson, Lecia
V. Sequist. 2016. Volumetric Tumor Response and Progression in EGFR-mutant NSCLC Patients Treated with Erlotinib or
Gefitinib. Academic Radiology 23:3, 329-336. [Crossref]
74. Dario Livio Longo, Filippo Michelotti, Lorena Consolino, Paola Bardini, Giuseppe Digilio, Gang Xiao, Phillip Zhe Sun, Silvio
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

Aime. 2016. In Vitro and In Vivo Assessment of Nonionic Iodinated Radiographic Molecules as Chemical Exchange Saturation
Transfer Magnetic Resonance Imaging Tumor Perfusion Agents. Investigative Radiology 51:3, 155-162. [Crossref]
75. Ioanna Papadopoulou, Victoria Stewart, Tara D. Barwick, Won-Ho Edward Park, Neil Soneji, Andrea G. Rockall, Nishat
Bharwani. 2016. Post–Radiation Therapy Imaging Appearances in Cervical Carcinoma. RadioGraphics 36:2, 538-553. [Crossref]
76. Jerry Usary, David Brian Darr, Adam D. Pfefferle, Charles M. Perou. 2016. Overview of Genetically Engineered Mouse Models
of Distinct Breast Cancer Subtypes. Current Protocols in Pharmacology 72:1. . [Crossref]
77. Aya Y. Michaels, Abhishek R. Keraliya, Sree Harsha Tirumani, Atul B. Shinagare, Nikhil H. Ramaiya. 2016. Systemic treatment
in breast cancer: a primer for radiologists. Insights into Imaging 7:1, 131-144. [Crossref]
78. X. Wang, J. Ren, J. Zhang, Y. Yan, N. Jiang, J. Yu, L. Di, G. Song, L. Che, J. Jia, X. Zhou, H. Yang, H. K. Lyerly.
2016. Prospective study of cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, carboplatin combined with adoptive DC-CIK followed by metronomic
cyclophosphamide therapy as salvage treatment for triple negative metastatic breast cancers patients (aged <45). Clinical and
Translational Oncology 18:1, 82-87. [Crossref]
79. Guang-Ping Qiu, Jie Liu. 2016. MicroRNA Gene Polymorphisms in Evaluating Therapeutic Efficacy After Transcatheter
Arterial Chemoembolization for Primary Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers 20:10, 579.
[Crossref]
80. António P Matos, Ersan Altun, Miguel Ramalho, Fernanda Velloni, Mamdoh AlObaidy, Richard C Semelka. 2015. An overview
of imaging techniques for liver metastases management. Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 9:12, 1561-1576.
[Crossref]
81. CHANG ZHOU, YENXIA LU, XUENONG LI. 2015. miR-339-3p inhibits proliferation and metastasis of colorectal cancer.
Oncology Letters 10:5, 2842-2848. [Crossref]
82. Andrew D. Smith, Mark R. Gray, Sara Martin del Campo, Darya Shlapak, Balaji Ganeshan, Xu Zhang, William E. Carson
III. 2015. Predicting Overall Survival in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma on Antiangiogenic Therapy and RECIST Stable
Disease on Initial Posttherapy Images Using CT Texture Analysis. American Journal of Roentgenology 205:3, W283-W293.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
83. Chun Fu, Xiaoyan Feng, Dujun Bian, Yan Zhao, Xiaoling Fang, Wanping Du, Lan Wang, Xiangquan Wang. 2015. Simultaneous
changes of magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging and pathological microstructure in locally advanced cervical cancer
caused by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 42:2, 427-435. [Crossref]
84. Charles A. Kunos, Tracy M. Sherertz, Mazen Mislmani, Rodney J. Ellis, Simon S. Lo, Steven E. Waggoner, Kristine M.
Zanotti, Karin Herrmann, Robert L. Debernardo. 2015. Phase I Trial of Carboplatin and Gemcitabine Chemotherapy and
Stereotactic Ablative Radiosurgery for the Palliative Treatment of Persistent or Recurrent Gynecologic Cancer. Frontiers in
Oncology 5. . [Crossref]
85. Richard G. Abramson, Carrie R. McGhee, Nikita Lakomkin, Carlos L. Arteaga. 2015. Pitfalls in RECIST Data Extraction
for Clinical Trials. Academic Radiology 22:6, 779-786. [Crossref]
86. Tsung-Ying Ho, Pai-Chien Chou, Cheng-Ta Yang, Ngan-Ming Tsang, Tzu-Chen Yen. 2015. Total Lesion Glycolysis
Determined per RECIST 1.1 Criteria Predicts Survival in EGFR Mutation-Negative Patients With Advanced Lung
Adenocarcinoma. Clinical Nuclear Medicine 40:6, e295-e299. [Crossref]
87. D. Hadhazi, B. Czetenyi, A. Horvath, G. Orban, G. Horvath, A. Horvath. Lung nodule volume measurement using digital
chest tomosynthesis 2026-2031. [Crossref]
88. D. Hadhazi, R. Varga, A. Horvath, B. Czetenyi, G. Horvath, A. Horvath. Digital chest tomosynthesis: The main steps to a
computer assisted lung diagnostic system 40-45. [Crossref]
89. Maria Kallergi, Maria Botsivali, Nikolaos Politis, Dimitrios Menychtas, Alexandros Georgakopoulos, Sofia Chatziioannou. A
pilot study of the prognostic significance of metabolic tumor size measurements in PET/CT imaging of lymphomas 941710.
[Crossref]
 90. Merlijn Sevenster, Adam R. Travis, Rajiv K. Ganesh, Peng Liu, Ursula Kose, Joost Peters, Paul J. Chang. 2015. Improved
Efficiency in Clinical Workflow of Reporting Measured Oncology Lesions Via PACS-Integrated Lesion Tracking Tool.
American Journal of Roentgenology 204:3, 576-583. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
91. Katherine M. Krajewski, Mizuki Nishino, Nikhil H. Ramaiya, Toni K. Choueiri. 2015. RECIST 1.1 Compared With RECIST
1.0 in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor–Targeted Therapy.
American Journal of Roentgenology 204:3, W282-W288. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

92. R. E. Gardiner, S. Jahangeer, P. Forde, A. B. Ariffin, B. Bird, D. Soden, J. Hinchion. 2015. Low immunogenicity in non-small
cell lung cancer; do new developments and novel treatments have a role?. Cancer and Metastasis Reviews 34:1, 129-144. [Crossref]
93. Thomas Henzler, Peter Goldstraw, Frederik Wenz, Robert Pirker, Walter Weder, Paul Apfaltrer, Mathias Meyer, Karen Buesing,
Lucio Crino, Dean Fennell, Christian Fink, Dominique Grunenwald, Christian Manegold, Lothar Pilz, Stefan O. Schoenberg,
Senan Suresh, Johan Vansteenkiste, Wieland Voigt, Björn Wängler, Gerald Schmid-Bindert. 2015. Perspectives of Novel
Imaging Techniques for Staging, Therapy Response Assessment, and Monitoring of Surveillance in Lung Cancer: Summary
of the Dresden 2013 Post WCLC-IASLC State-of-the-Art Imaging Workshop. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 10:2, 237-249.
[Crossref]
94. Zhong-Ling Qiu, Chen-Tian Shen, Quan-Yong Luo. 2015. Clinical Management and Outcomes in Patients with
Hyperfunctioning Distant Metastases from Differentiated Thyroid Cancer After Total Thyroidectomy and Radioactive Iodine
Therapy. Thyroid 25:2, 229-237. [Crossref]
95. Avinash Kambadakone, Sam S. Yoon, Tae-Min Kim, Daniel L. Karl, Dan G. Duda, Thomas F. DeLaney, Dushyant V. Sahani.
2015. CT Perfusion as an Imaging Biomarker in Monitoring Response to Neoadjuvant Bevacizumab and Radiation in Soft-
Tissue Sarcomas: Comparison With Tumor Morphology, Circulating and Tumor Biomarkers, and Gene Expression. American
Journal of Roentgenology 204:1, W11-W18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
96. J. Ferreirós, B. Cabeza, Á. Gayete, M. Sánchez, M.I. Torres, M. Cobo, D. Isla, J. Puente, N. Reguart, J. de Castro. 2015.
Recomendaciones para el diagnóstico radiológico y la valoración de la respuesta terapéutica en el cáncer de pulmón. Consenso
nacional de la Sociedad Española de Radiología Médica y la Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica. Radiología 57:1, 66-78.
[Crossref]
97. Mizuki Nishino, Sree H. Tirumani, Nikhil H. Ramaiya, F. Stephen Hodi. 2015. Cancer immunotherapy and immune-related
response assessment: The role of radiologists in the new arena of cancer treatment. European Journal of Radiology 84:7, 1259.
[Crossref]
98. J. de Castro, M. Cobo, D. Isla, J. Puente, N. Reguart, B. Cabeza, A. Gayete, M. Sánchez, M. I. Torres, J. Ferreirós. 2015.
Recommendations for radiological diagnosis and assessment of treatment response in lung cancer: a national consensus statement
by the Spanish Society of Medical Radiology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology. Clinical and Translational Oncology
17:1, 11-23. [Crossref]
99. Estanislao Oubel, Eric Bonnard, Naoko Sueoka-Aragane, Naomi Kobayashi, Colette Charbonnier, Junta Yamamichi, Hideaki
Mizobe, Shinya Kimura. 2015. Volume-based Response Evaluation with Consensual Lesion Selection. Academic Radiology 22:2,
217. [Crossref]
100. Andrew B. Rosenkrantz, Mishal Mendiratta-Lala, Brian J. Bartholmai, Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan, Richard G. Abramson,
Kirsteen R. Burton, John-Paul J. Yu, Ernest M. Scalzetti, Thomas E. Yankeelov, Rathan M. Subramaniam, Leon Lenchik.
2015. Clinical Utility of Quantitative Imaging. Academic Radiology 22:1, 33-49. [Crossref]
101. Lokesh Rana, Sanjiv Sharma, Shikha Sood, Balraj Singh, Manoj K. Gupta, R.S. Minhas, Anupam Jhobta, Vikas Bhatia,
Bargavee Venkat. 2015. Volumetric CT perfusion assessment of treatment response in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma:
Comparison of CT perfusion parameters before and after chemoradiation therapy. European Journal of Radiology Open 2, 46-54.
[Crossref]
102. Juichi Takada, Hisashi Hidaka, Takahide Nakazawa, Masaaki Kondo, Kazushi Numata, Katsuaki Tanaka, Kotaro Matsunaga,
Chiaki Okuse, Satoshi Kobayashi, Manabu Morimoto, Shinichi Ohkawa, Wasaburo Koizumi. 2015. Modified response
evaluation criteria in solid tumors is superior to response evaluation criteria in solid tumors for assessment of responses to
sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC Research Notes 8:1. . [Crossref]
103. Jeffrey Bonham, Daniel Thomas Ginat, Suzanne K. Freitag. Imaging After Orbital and Intraocular Oncology Therapies 171-200.
[Crossref]
104. Mizuki Nishino, Anita Giobbie-Hurder, Nikhil H Ramaiya, F Stephen Hodi. 2014. Response assessment in metastatic
melanoma treated with ipilimumab and bevacizumab: CT tumor size and density as markers for response and outcome. Journal
for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer 2:1. . [Crossref]
 105. Mizuki Nishino, Maria Gargano, Margaret Suda, Nikhil H Ramaiya, F Stephen Hodi. 2014. Optimizing immune-related
tumor response assessment: does reducing the number of lesions impact response assessment in melanoma patients treated with
ipilimumab?. Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer 2:1. . [Crossref]
106. Sree Harsha Tirumani, Kyung Won Kim, Mizuki Nishino, Stephanie A. Howard, Katherine M. Krajewski, Jyothi P.
Jagannathan, James M. Cleary, Nikhil H. Ramaiya, Atul B. Shinagare. 2014. Update on the Role of Imaging in Management
of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. RadioGraphics 34:7, 1908-1928. [Crossref]
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

107. Daniel Thomas Ginat, Pamela W. Schaefer. 2014. Imaging guidelines and findings of extracranial glioblastoma. Journal of
Neuro-Oncology 118:1, 9-18. [Crossref]
108. J. Cervera Deval. 2014. RECIST y el radiólogo. Radiología 56:3, 193-205. [Crossref]
109. Evangelia Razis, George Pentheroudakis, George Rigakos, Mattheos Bobos, George Kouvatseas, Olympia Tzaida, Thomas
Makatsoris, Pavlos Papakostas, Maria Bai, Anna Goussia, Epaminontas Samantas, Demetrios Papamichael, Ourania Romanidou,
Ioannis Efstratiou, Eleftheria Tsolaki, Amanda Psyrri, Wendy De Roock, Dimitrios Bafaloukos, George Klouvas, Sabine Tejpar,
Konstantine T. Kalogeras, Dimitrios Pectasides, George Fountzilas. 2014. EGFR gene gain and PTEN protein expression are
favorable prognostic factors in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. Journal of
Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 140:5, 737-748. [Crossref]
110. Mizuki Nishino, Hiroto Hatabu, Bruce E. Johnson, Theresa C. McLoud. 2014. State of the Art: Response Assessment in
Lung Cancer in the Era of Genomic Medicine. Radiology 271:1, 6-27. [Crossref]
111. George Pentheroudakis, Vassiliki Kotoula, George Kouvatseas, Elpida Charalambous, Dimitrios Dionysopoulos, Flora Zagouri,
Angelos Koutras, Konstantinos Papazisis, Dimitrios Pectasides, Epaminontas Samantas, Meletios A. Dimopoulos, Christos
N. Papandreou, George Fountzilas. 2014. Association of VEGF-A Splice Variant mRNA Expression With Outcome in
Bevacizumab-Treated Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer. Clinical Breast Cancer . [Crossref]
112. Ravi Chandra Vemuri, Rudresh Jarecha, Kim Kah Hwi, Rohit Gundamaraju, Aripaka MaruthiKanth, AravindRao Kulkarni,
Sundeep Reddy. 2014. Importance of Volumetric Measurement Processes in Oncology Imaging Trials for Screening and
Evaluation of Tumors as Per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 15:5,
2375-2378. [Crossref]
113. Elham Fakhrejahani, Masakazu Toi. 2014. Antiangiogenesis Therapy for Breast Cancer: An Update and Perspectives from
Clinical Trials. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 44:3, 197-207. [Crossref]
114. Shozo Okamoto, Tohru Shiga, Yuko Uchiyama, Osamu Manabe, Kentaro Kobayashi, Keiichiro Yoshinaga, Nagara Tamaki.
2014. Lung uptake on I-131 therapy and short-term outcome in patients with lung metastasis from differentiated thyroid
cancer. Annals of Nuclear Medicine 28:2, 81-87. [Crossref]
115. Mark R. Gray, Sara Martin del Campo, Xu Zhang, Haowei Zhang, Frederico F. Souza, William E. Carson, Andrew D. Smith.
2014. Metastatic Melanoma: Lactate Dehydrogenase Levels and CT Imaging Findings of Tumor Devascularization Allow
Accurate Prediction of Survival in Patients Treated with Bevacizumab. Radiology 270:2, 425-434. [Crossref]
116. Jing Yu, Weidong Li, Zhang Zhang, Tielian Yu, Dong Li. 2014. Prediction of Early Response to Chemotherapy in Lung Cancer
by Using Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging. The Scientific World Journal 2014, 1-7. [Crossref]
117. . Molecular Imaging 16-23. [Crossref]
118. Andreas P. Koureas. US-CT-MRI Findings: Staging-Response-Restaging of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors 89-95. [Crossref]
119. Arkadios Chr. Rousakis, John A. Andreou. Imaging Criteria for Tumor Treatment Response Evaluation 13-25. [Crossref]
120. M.M. Nadrljanski, R. Maksimovic, V. Plesinac-Karapandzic, B. Markovic-Vasiljkovic, G.V. Hadjidekov, A. Jankovic, Z.C.
Milosevic. 2013. Découverte fortuite de métastases pulmonaires sur l’IRM du sein chez les patientes atteintes d’un cancer du
sein localement avancé. Feuillets de Radiologie 53:6, 353-357. [Crossref]
121. George Pentheroudakis, Vassiliki Kotoula, Wendy De Roock, George Kouvatseas, Pavlos Papakostas, Thomas Makatsoris,
Demetris Papamichael, Ioannis Xanthakis, Joseph Sgouros, Despina Televantou, Georgia Kafiri, Athanassios C Tsamandas,
Evangelia Razis, Eleni Galani, Dimitrios Bafaloukos, Ioannis Efstratiou, Iliada Bompolaki, Dimitrios Pectasides, Nicholas
Pavlidis, Sabine Tejpar, George Fountzilas. 2013. Biomarkers of benefit from cetuximab-based therapy in metastatic colorectal
cancer: interaction of EGFR ligand expression with RAS/RAF, PIK3CA genotypes. BMC Cancer 13:1. . [Crossref]
122. Hemchandra Mahaseth, Edith Brutcher, John Kauh, Natalyn Hawk, Sungjin Kim, Zhengjia Chen, David A. Kooby, Shishir K.
Maithel, Jerome Landry, Bassel F. El-Rayes. 2013. Modified FOLFIRINOX Regimen With Improved Safety and Maintained
Efficacy in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. Pancreas 42:8, 1311-1315. [Crossref]
 123. Mizuki Nishino, Suzanne E. Dahlberg, Stephanie Cardarella, David M. Jackman, Michael S. Rabin, Nikhil H. Ramaiya, Hiroto
Hatabu, Pasi A. Jänne, Bruce E. Johnson. 2013. Volumetric tumor growth in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with
EGFR mutations during EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. Cancer 119:21, 3761-3768. [Crossref]
124. Stephanie Cheng, Tan Lucien H. Mohammed. 2013. Metastatic Disease to the Lungs and Pleura: An Overview. Seminars in
Roentgenology 48:4, 335-343. [Crossref]
125. Fernanda D. Gonzalez-Guindalini, Marcos P. F. Botelho, Carla B. Harmath, Kumaresan Sandrasegaran, Frank H. Miller, Riad
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

Salem, Vahid Yaghmai. 2013. Assessment of Liver Tumor Response to Therapy: Role of Quantitative Imaging. RadioGraphics
33:6, 1781-1800. [Crossref]
126. Alexios Strimpakos, George Pentheroudakis, Vassiliki Kotoula, Wendy De Roock, George Kouvatseas, Pavlos Papakostas,
Thomas Makatsoris, Demetris Papamichael, Anna Andreadou, Joseph Sgouros, Adamantia Zizi-Sermpetzoglou, Athina
Kominea, Despina Televantou, Evangelia Razis, Eleni Galani, Dimitrios Pectasides, Sabine Tejpar, Konstantinos Syrigos, George
Fountzilas. 2013. The Prognostic Role of Ephrin A2 and Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Pathway Mediators in Patients
With Advanced Colorectal Cancer Treated With Cetuximab. Clinical Colorectal Cancer . [Crossref]
127. Chun Fu, Xiaoyan Feng, Dujun Bian, Wanping Du, Xiangquan Wang, Yan Zhao. 2013. Basic T1 Perfusion Magnetic Resonance
Imaging Evaluation of the Therapeutic Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer. International
Journal of Gynecological Cancer 23:7, 1270-1278. [Crossref]
128. Mizuki Nishino, Suzanne E. Dahlberg, Stephanie Cardarella, David M. Jackman, Michael S. Rabin, Hiroto Hatabu, Pasi A.
Jänne, Bruce E. Johnson. 2013. Tumor Volume Decrease at 8 Weeks Is Associated with Longer Survival in EGFR-Mutant
Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated with EGFR TKI. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 8:8, 1059-1068.
[Crossref]
129. H. Henary, D. S. Hong, G. S. Falchook, A. Tsimberidou, G. C. George, S. Wen, J. Wheler, S. Fu, A. Naing, S. Piha-Paul, F.
Janku, K. B. Kim, P. Hwu, R. Kurzrock. 2013. Melanoma patients in a phase I clinic: molecular aberrations, targeted therapy
and outcomes. Annals of Oncology 24:8, 2158-2165. [Crossref]
130. MAOMEI RUAN, YAN SHEN, LIBO CHEN, MINGHUA LI. 2013. RECIST 1.1 and serum thyroglobulin measurements in
the evaluation of responses to sorafenib in patients with radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Oncology
Letters 6:2, 480-486. [Crossref]
131. Mizuki Nishino, Stephanie Cardarella, David M. Jackman, Nikhil H. Ramaiya, Michael S. Rabin, Hiroto Hatabu, Pasi A.
Jänne, Bruce E. Johnson. 2013. RECIST 1.1 in NSCLC Patients With EGFR Mutations Treated With EGFR Tyrosine Kinase
Inhibitors: Comparison With RECIST 1.0. American Journal of Roentgenology 201:1, W64-W71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
132. M. D’Anastasi, N.A. Schramm, M.F. Reiser, A. Graser. 2013. Kriterien für die radiologische Beurteilung des
Therapieansprechens. Der Radiologe 53:4, 322-328. [Crossref]
133. Mizuki Nishino, Stephanie Cardarella, Suzanne E. Dahlberg, David M. Jackman, Nikhil H. Ramaiya, Hiroto Hatabu, Michael
S. Rabin, Pasi A. Jnne, Bruce E. Johnson. 2013. Radiographic assessment and therapeutic decisions at RECIST progression in
EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Lung Cancer 79:3, 283-288. [Crossref]
134. Tobias Heye, Elmar M. Merkle, Caecilia S. Reiner, Matthew S. Davenport, Jeffrey J. Horvath, Sebastian Feuerlein, Steven
R. Breault, Peter Gall, Mustafa R. Bashir, Brian M. Dale, Atilla P. Kiraly, Daniel T. Boll. 2013. Reproducibility of Dynamic
Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging. Part II. Comparison of Intra- and Interobserver Variability with Manual Region of Interest
Placement versus Semiautomatic Lesion Segmentation and Histogram Analysis. Radiology 266:3, 812-821. [Crossref]
135. R. Duvauferrier, M. Valence, S. Patrat-Delon, E. Brillet, E. Niederberger, A. Marchand, M. Rescan, R. Guillin, O. Decaux.
2013. Current role of CT and whole body MRI in multiple myeloma. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging 94:2, 169-183.
[Crossref]
136. R. Duvauferrier, M. Valence, S. Patrat-Delon, E. Brillet, E. Niederberger, A. Marchand, M. Rescan, R. Guillin, O. Decaux.
2013. Place actuelle du scanner et de l’IRM corps entier dans le myélome multiple. Journal de Radiologie Diagnostique et
Interventionnelle 94:2, 175-189. [Crossref]
137. Hajer Jarraya, Xavier Mirabel, Sophie Taieb, Sylvain Dewas, Emmanuelle Tresch, Francois Bonodeau, Antoine Adenis, Andrew
Kramar, Eric Lartigau, Luc Ceugnart. 2013. Image-based response assessment of liver metastases following stereotactic body
radiotherapy with respiratory tracking. Radiation Oncology 8:1, 24. [Crossref]
138. Matthew C. Ward, Ling Lan, Amy Y. Chen, Jonathan J. Beitler. 2012. The value of tumor diameter in predicting prognosis
of oropharynx cancer treated with chemoradiation. Oral Oncology 48:9, 876-880. [Crossref]
 139. Aaron C. Abajian, Mia Levy, Daniel L. Rubin. 2012. Informatics in Radiology: Improving Clinical Work Flow through an
AIM Database: A Sample Web-based Lesion Tracking Application. RadioGraphics 32:5, 1543-1552. [Crossref]
140. Chun Fu, Dujun Bian, Fengying Liu, Xiaoyan Feng, Wanping Du, Xiangquan Wang. 2012. The Value of Diffusion-Weighted
Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Assessing the Response of Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 22:6, 1037-1043. [Crossref]
141. Yana G. Najjar, Brian I. Rini. 2012. Novel agents in renal carcinoma: a reality check. Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 139.255.144.150 on 12/14/19 from IP address 139.255.144.150. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved

4:4, 183-194. [Crossref]

142. José Farre Alegre, Maritza Duarte, Manuel Sureda González, Pere Bretcha Boix, Carlos Dussan, Antonio Ballester, Aurora
Crespo, Antonio Brugarolas Masllorens. 2012. Tratamiento regional del sarcoma y melanoma localmente avanzado de la
extremidad mediante la perfusión aislada con tumor necrosis factor α y melfalan asociada a hipertermia. Cirugía Española 90:2,
114-120. [Crossref]
143. Mauricio Stanzione Galizia, Hüseyin Gürkan Töre, Hamid Chalian, Robert McCarthy, Riad Salem, Vahid Yaghmai. 2012.
MDCT Necrosis Quantification in the Assessment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Response to Yttrium 90 Radioembolization
Therapy. Academic Radiology 19:1, 48-54. [Crossref]
144. Tao Jiang, Avinash Kambadakone, Naveen M. Kulkarni, Andrew X. Zhu, Dushyant V. Sahani. 2012. Monitoring Response
to Antiangiogenic Treatment and Predicting Outcomes in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Image Biomarkers, CT
Perfusion, Tumor Density, and Tumor Size (RECIST). Investigative Radiology 47:1, 11-17. [Crossref]
145. Francesco Sardanelli, Anastasia Esseridou, Angelo S. Del Sole, Luca M. Sconfienza. Response to Treatment: The Role of
Imaging 15-37. [Crossref]
146. Roberto García Figueiras, Anwar R. Padhani, Vicky J. Goh, Joan C. Vilanova, Sandra Baleato González, Carmen Villalba Martín,
Antonio Gómez Caamaño, Anaberta Bermúdez Naveira, Peter L. Choyke. 2011. Novel Oncologic Drugs: What They Do and
How They Affect Images. RadioGraphics 31:7, 2059-2091. [Crossref]
147. Hamid Chalian, Hüseyin Gürkan Töre, Jeanne M. Horowitz, Riad Salem, Frank H. Miller, Vahid Yaghmai. 2011. Radiologic
Assessment of Response to Therapy: Comparison of RECIST Versions 1.1 and 1.0. RadioGraphics 31:7, 2093-2105. [Crossref]
148. Vahid Yaghmai, Frank H. Miller, Pedram Rezai, Al B. Benson, III, Riad Salem. 2011. Response to Treatment Series: Part
2, Tumor Response Assessment—Using New and Conventional Criteria. American Journal of Roentgenology 197:1, 18-27.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
149. Asim Afaq, Oguz Akin. 2011. Imaging assessment of tumor response: past, present and future. Future Oncology 7:5, 669-677.
[Crossref]
150. A.D. Elster. 2011. Revised RECIST Guideline Version 1.1: What Oncologists Want to Know and What Radiologists Need to
Know. Yearbook of Diagnostic Radiology 2011, 190-191. [Crossref]