Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 401

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring Response in Solid Tumors: Unidimensional Versus Bidimensional Measurement

James, K., Eisenhauer, E., Christian, M., Terenziani, M., Vena, D., Muldal, A., Therasse, P.·1999·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tumor shrinkage is a common end point used in screening new cytotoxic agents. The standard World Health Organization criterion for partial response is a 50% or more decrease in the sum of the products of two measurements (the maximum diameter of a tumor and the largest diameter perpendicular to this maximum diameter) of individual tumors. However, theoretically, the simple sum of the maximum diameters of individual tumors is more linearly related to cell kill than is the sum of the bidimensional products. It has been hypothesized that the calculation of bidimensional products is unnecessary, and a 30% decrease in the sum of maximum diameters of individual tumors (assuming spherical shape and equivalence to a 50% reduction in the sum of the bidimensional products) was proposed as a new criterion. We have applied the standard response and the new response criteria to the same data to determine whether the same number of responses in the same patients would result. METHODS: Data from 569 patients included in eight studies of a variety of cancers were reanalyzed. The two response criteria were separately applied, and the results were compared using the kappa statistic. The importance of confirmatory measurements and the frequency of nonspherical tumors were also examined. In addition, for a subset of 128 patients, a unidimensional criterion for disease progression (30% increase in the sum of maximum diameters) was applied and compared with the standard definition of a 25% increase in the sum of the bidimensional products. RESULTS: Agreement between the unidimensional and bidimensional criteria was generally found to be good. The kappa statistic for concordance for overall response was 0.95. CONCLUSION: We conclude that one dimensional measurement of tumor maximum diameter may be sufficient to assess change in solid tumors.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/91.6.523

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 401

Metadata

Authors
James, K., Eisenhauer, E., Christian, M., Terenziani, M., Vena, D., Muldal, A., & Therasse, P.
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
1999-03-17
Volume
91
Issue
6
Pages
523-528
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2107907914
Cited by
401
References
7
FWCI
9.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring Response in Solid Tumors: Unidimensional Versus Bidimensional Measurement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/91.6.523
The paper
James, K., Eisenhauer, E., Christian, M., Terenziani, M., Vena, D., Muldal, A., & Therasse, P. (1999). Measuring Response in Solid Tumors: Unidimensional Versus Bidimensional Measurement. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/91.6.523

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.