Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 3,486

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Report of an International Workshop to Standardize Response Criteria for Non-Hodgkin's Lymphomas

Cheson, Bruce D., Horning, Sandra J., Coiffier, Bertr, Shipp, Margaret A., Fisher, Richard I., Connors, Joseph M., Lister, T. Andrew, Vose, Julie, Grillo-López, Antonio, Hagenbeek, Anton, Cabanillas, Fernando, Klippensten, Donald, Hiddemann, Wolfgang, Castellino, Ronald, Harris, Nancy L., Armitage, James O., Carter, William, Hoppe, Richard, Canellos, George P.·1999·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Standardized guidelines for response assessment are needed to ensure comparability among clinical trials in non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (NHL). To achieve this, two meetings were convened among United States and international lymphoma experts representing medical hematology/oncology, radiology, radiation oncology, and pathology to review currently used response definitions and to develop a uniform set of criteria for assessing response in clinical trials. The criteria that were developed include anatomic definitions of response, with normal lymph node size after treatment of 1.5 cm in the longest transverse diameter by computer-assisted tomography scan. A designation of complete response/unconfirmed was adopted to include patients with a greater than 75% reduction in tumor size after therapy but with a residual mass, to include patients—especially those with large-cell NHL—who may not have residual disease. Single-photon emission computed tomography gallium scans are encouraged as a valuable adjunct to assessment of patients with large-cell NHL, but such scans require appropriate expertise. Flow cytometric, cytogenetic, and molecular studies are not currently included in response definitions. Response rates may be the most important objective in phase II trials where the activity of a new agent is important and may provide support for approval by regulatory agencies. However, the goals of most phase III trials are to identify therapies that will prolong the progression-free survival, if not the overall survival, of the treated patients. We hope that these guidelines will serve to improve communication among investigators and comparability among clinical trials until clinically relevant laboratory and imaging studies are identified and become more widely available.

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 · 10.1200/jco.1999.17.4.1244

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 3,486

Metadata

Authors
Cheson, B. D., Horning, S. J., Coiffier, B., Shipp, M. A., Fisher, R. I., Connors, J. M., Lister, T. A., Vose, J., Grillo-López, A., Hagenbeek, A., Cabanillas, F., Klippensten, D., Hiddemann, W., Castellino, R., Harris, N. L., Armitage, J. O., Carter, W., Hoppe, R., & Canellos, G. P.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1999-04
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
1244-1244
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1912693401
Cited by
3,486
References
0
FWCI
38.94
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: Report of an International Workshop to Standardize Response Criteria for Non-Hodgkin's Lymphomas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1999.17.4.1244
The paper
Cheson, B. D., Horning, S. J., Coiffier, B., Shipp, M. A., Fisher, R. I., Connors, J. M., Lister, T. A., Vose, J., Grillo-López, A., Hagenbeek, A., Cabanillas, F., Klippensten, D., Hiddemann, W., Castellino, R., Harris, N. L., Armitage, J. O., Carter, W., Hoppe, R., & Canellos, G. P. (1999). Report of an International Workshop to Standardize Response Criteria for Non-Hodgkin's Lymphomas. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1999.17.4.1244

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.