Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 195

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of linear and volumetric criteria in assessing tumor response in adult high-grade gliomas1

Open access
Shah, Gaurav D., Kesari, Santosh, Xu, Ronghui, Batchelor, Tracy T., O'Neill, Alison M., Hochberg, Fred H., Levy, Brenda, Bradshaw, Joanna, Wen, Patrick Y.·2006·Neuro-Oncology

Abstract

The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, or RECIST criteria (one-dimensional [1D] measurement), are widely used to measure response in tumors, but there are few studies evaluating these criteria in brain tumors. We compared linear and volumetric measurements in adult high-grade supratentorial enhancing gliomas to determine the agreement between measurements, in defining responses and in their subsequent relation to survival. We hypothesized that the 1D RECIST criteria maybe suitable for response assessment in adult high-grade gliomas. Tumor size on MRI scans in 104 patients with high-grade enhancing gliomas treated on clinical trial protocols was measured by using 1D (greatest length), 2D (two-dimensional: product of the two longest perpendicular diameters), 3D (three dimensional: product of the longest perpendicular diameters in one plane and the longest orthogonal diameter to that plane), enhancing volume (EV), and total volume (TV). A total of 388 T1 postgadolinium MRI scans (104 baseline and 284 follow-up scans) were evaluated. Volumetric analysis (EV and TV) was performed with commercially available software. Intraobserver and interobserver correlations (rho) were high for all modalities (rho > 0.92 and rho > 0.71, respectively). Correlation was excellent (rho > 0.9) among all modalities except for 3D (rho < 0.6). Patient response rates ranged from 12% to 26%. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) and six-month progression-free survival (6mPFS) were not significantly different among the methods (range, 5.3 months to 5.9 months and 42% to 48%, respectively). Landmark analyses of response at two months using linear methods predicted overall survival with hazard ratios of 0.19 to 0.29 (P < 0.005). These results suggest high concordance among 1D, 2D, TV, and EV, but not 3D, methods in assessing enhancing tumor progression and in estimating mPFS and 6mPFS in adult brain tumor patients. The tumor response at two months assessed by linear methods correlated better with overall survival. Thus, linear methods are comparable to volumetric methods, but simpler to implement for routine clinical use and for designing clinical trials of brain 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 · 10.1215/s1522851705000529

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 195

Metadata

Authors
Shah, G. D., Kesari, S., Xu, R., Batchelor, T. T., O'Neill, A. M., Hochberg, F. H., Levy, B., Bradshaw, J., & Wen, P. Y.
Venue
Neuro-Oncology
Published
2006-01-01
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
38-46
ISSN
  • 1522-8517 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-5866
OpenAlex
W1968287404
Cited by
195
References
2
FWCI
3.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Comparison of linear and volumetric criteria in assessing tumor response in adult high-grade gliomas1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1215/s1522851705000529
The paper
Shah, G. D., Kesari, S., Xu, R., Batchelor, T. T., O'Neill, A. M., Hochberg, F. H., Levy, B., Bradshaw, J., & Wen, P. Y. (2006). Comparison of linear and volumetric criteria in assessing tumor response in adult high-grade gliomas1. Neuro-Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1215/s1522851705000529

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.