Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (879 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
An internationally recognized set of published rules used for evaluation of cancer treatment that define when tumors found in cancer patients improve, worsen, or remain stable during treatment. These criteria are based specifically on the response of the tumor(s) to treatment, and not on the overall health status of the patient resulting from treatment.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: RECIST.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Treatment Outcome
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 1,121 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 555 of them (49.5%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 602 records.
Reviews account for 124 records (11.1%) and meta-analyses for 17. Randomized controlled trials number 90 (8.0%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up a comparatively large share of this literature, which means many treatment questions have been tested directly.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 0 |
| 2000-2009 | 0 |
| 2010-2019 | 602 |
| 2020 onward | 555 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 124 | 11.1% |
| Meta-analyses | 17 | 1.5% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 90 | 8.0% |
Method: PubMed query "Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.
Reading the evidence in clinical research
Research methods determine how much a result can be trusted. Randomized trials guard against confounding, systematic reviews and meta-analyses combine many studies, and observational designs are valuable but can show only association. Reporting standards, trial registration and pre-specified outcomes reduce bias. When reading about a method, ask what problem it is designed to solve and which problems it does not solve.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
Time to health-related quality of life score deterioration as a modality of longitudinal analysis for health-related quality of life studies in oncology: do we need RECIST for quality of life to achieve standardization? [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- PurposeLongitudinal analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) remains unstandardized and compromises comparison of results between trials.
- Closing excerpt
- ConclusionCurrently, the international ARCAD group supports the idea of developing RECIST for HRQoL in pancreatic and colorectal cancer with liver metastasis, with a view to using HRQoL as a co-primary endpoint along with a tumor parameter.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (245 words)
PurposeLongitudinal analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) remains unstandardized and compromises comparison of results between trials. In oncology, despite available statistical approaches, results are poorly used to change standards of care, mainly due to lack of standardization and the ability to propose clinical meaningful results. In this context, the time to deterioration (TTD) has been proposed as a modality of longitudinal HRQoL analysis for cancer patients. As for tumor response and progression, we propose to develop RECIST criteria for HRQoL.MethodsSeveral definitions of TTD are investigated in this paper. We applied this approach in early breast cancer and metastatic pancreatic cancer with a 5-point minimal clinically important difference. In breast cancer, TTD was defined as compared to the baseline score or to the best previous score. In pancreatic cancer (arm 1: gemcitabine with FOLFIRI.3, arm 2: gemcitabine alone), the time until definitive deterioration (TUDD) was investigated with or without death as event.ResultsIn the breast cancer study, 381 women were included. The median TTD was influenced by the choice of the reference score. In pancreatic cancer study, 98 patients were enrolled. Patients in Arm 1 presented longer TUDD than those in Arm 2 for most of HRQoL scores. Results of TUDD were slightly different according to the definition of deterioration applied.ConclusionCurrently, the international ARCAD group supports the idea of developing RECIST for HRQoL in pancreatic and colorectal cancer with liver metastasis, with a view to using HRQoL as a co-primary endpoint along with a tumor parameter.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 24277234 · DOI · PMC4282717
RECIST and iRECIST criteria for the evaluation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: the GERCOR NIPICOL phase II study [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are highly effective in patients with microsatellite instability/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).
- Closing excerpt
- Trial registration numberNCT03350126.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (308 words)
BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are highly effective in patients with microsatellite instability/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 criteria may underestimate response to ICIs due to the pseudoprogression phenomenon. The GERCOR NIPICOL phase II study aimed to evaluate the frequency of pseudoprogressions in patients with MSI/dMMR mCRC treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab.MethodsPatients with MSI/dMMR mCRC previously treated with fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan with/without targeted therapies received nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or a maximum of 20 cycles. Computed tomography scan tumor assessments were done every 6 weeks for 24 weeks and then every 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was disease control rate at 12 weeks according to RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST by central review.ResultsOf 57 patients included between December 2017 and November 2018, 48.0% received ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy, 18.0% had BRAFV600E mutation, and 56.0% had Lynch syndrome-related cancer. Seven patients (12.0%) discontinued treatment due to adverse events; one died due to a treatment-related adverse event. The disease control rate (DCR) at 12 weeks was 86.0% with RECIST 1.1% and 87.7% with iRECIST. Two pseudoprogressions (3.5%) were observed, at week 6 and at week 36, representing 18% of patients with disease progression per RECIST 1.1 criteria. With a median follow-up of 18.4 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached. The 12-month PFS rate was 72.9% with RECIST 1.1% and 76.5% with iRECIST. The 12-month OS rate was 84%. Overall response rate was 59.7% with both criteria. RAS/BRAF status, sidedness, Lynch syndrome, and other baseline parameters were not associated with PFS.ConclusionPseudoprogression is rare in patients with MSI/dMMR mCRC treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab. This combined ICI therapy confirms impressive DCR and survival outcomes in these patients.Trial registration numberNCT03350126.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 33148693 · DOI · PMC7640587
iRECIST: how to do it [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundiRECIST for the objective monitoring of immunotherapies was published by the official RECIST working group in 2017.
- Closing excerpt
- ConclusionThis article provides guidance for response assessment of oncologic patients under immunotherapy based on iRECIST criteria.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (158 words)
BackgroundiRECIST for the objective monitoring of immunotherapies was published by the official RECIST working group in 2017.Main bodyImmune-checkpoint inhibitors represent one of the most important therapy advancements in modern oncology. They are currently used for treatment of multiple malignant diseases especially at advanced, metastatic stages which were poorly therapeutically accessible in the past. Promising results of recent studies suggest that their application will further grow in the near future, particularly when used in combination with chemotherapy. A challenging aspect of these immunotherapies is that they may show atypical therapy response patterns such as pseudoprogression and demonstrate a different imaging spectrum of adverse reactions, both of which are crucial for radiologists to understand. In 2017 the RECIST working group published a modified set of response criteria, iRECIST, for immunotherapy, based on RECIST 1.1 which was developed for cytotoxic therapies and adapted for targeted agents.ConclusionThis article provides guidance for response assessment of oncologic patients under immunotherapy based on iRECIST criteria.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 31900236 · DOI · PMC6942293
A CT Dataset with RECIST Measurements and Comprehensive Segmentation Masks for Tumors and Lymph Nodes [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.
- Closing excerpt
- By including data from a Latin American institution, this dataset also promotes global representation in the development of generalizable medical AI tools.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (168 words)
The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1) protocol is the gold standard for assessing treatment response in oncological clinical trials and routine practice. It requires radiologists to review and select appropriate target lesions and perform precise diameter measurements, making the process labor-intensive and variable. Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds great promise for automating this workflow, but progress is hindered by the lack of public datasets with comprehensive lesion annotations and RECIST-compliant measurements. We address this gap by presenting a dataset of 1,246 manually segmented lesions from 58 CT scans of 22 cancer patients treated at the Clinical Hospital of the University of Chile (HCUCH). All cases were evaluated under RECIST 1.1, with diameter measurements reported for 82 target lesions. This resource supports diverse applications, including validating automated RECIST tools, applying radiomics to study metastatic heterogeneity, benchmarking segmentation algorithms, and advancing foundation models in medical imaging. By including data from a Latin American institution, this dataset also promotes global representation in the development of generalizable medical AI tools.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41559108 · DOI · PMC12917031
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics [5]
- Research article mRECIST for HCC: Performance and novel refinements [6]
- Research article RECIST 1.1 - Standardisation and disease-specific adaptations: Perspectives from the RECIST Working Group [7]
- Research article International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017) [8]
- Research article Historical time to disease progression and progression-free survival in patients with recurrent/refractory neuroblastoma treated in the modern era on Children's Oncology Group early-phase trials [9]
- Research article RECIST - learning from the past to build the future [10]
References
- Anota A, Hamidou Z, Paget-Bailly S, Chibaudel B, Bascoul-Mollevi C, Auquier P, et al.. Time to health-related quality of life score deterioration as a modality of longitudinal analysis for health-related quality of life studies in oncology: do we need RECIST for quality of life to achieve standardization?. . 2015. PMID 24277234 · DOI · PMC4282717
- Cohen R, Bennouna J, Meurisse A, Tournigand C, De La Fouchardière C, Tougeron D, et al.. RECIST and iRECIST criteria for the evaluation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: the GERCOR NIPICOL phase II study. . 2020. PMID 33148693 · DOI · PMC7640587
- Persigehl T, Lennartz S, Schwartz LH. iRECIST: how to do it. . 2020. PMID 31900236 · DOI · PMC6942293
- Rojas-Pizarro R, Vásquez-Venegas C, Pereira G, Eyssautier MF, Bravo-Bahamóndez F, Sanhueza N, et al.. A CT Dataset with RECIST Measurements and Comprehensive Segmentation Masks for Tumors and Lymph Nodes. . 2026. PMID 41559108 · DOI · PMC12917031
- Seymour L, Bogaerts J, Perrone A, Ford R, Schwartz LH, Mandrekar S, et al.. iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol. 2017. PMID 28271869 · DOI · PMC5648544
- Llovet JM, Lencioni R. mRECIST for HCC: Performance and novel refinements. J Hepatol. 2020. PMID 31954493 · DOI · PMC12452114
- Schwartz LH, Seymour L, Litière S, Ford R, Gwyther S, Mandrekar S, et al.. RECIST 1.1 - Standardisation and disease-specific adaptations: Perspectives from the RECIST Working Group. Eur J Cancer. 2016. PMID 27237360 · DOI · PMC5737786
- Younes A, Hilden P, Coiffier B, Hagenbeek A, Salles G, Wilson W, et al.. International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017). Ann Oncol. 2017. PMID 28379322 · DOI · PMC5834038
- London WB, Bagatell R, Weigel BJ, Fox E, Guo D, Van Ryn C, et al.. Historical time to disease progression and progression-free survival in patients with recurrent/refractory neuroblastoma treated in the modern era on Children's Oncology Group early-phase trials. Cancer. 2017. PMID 28885700 · DOI · PMC5716896
- Litière S, Collette S, de Vries EG, Seymour L, Bogaerts J. RECIST - learning from the past to build the future. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017. PMID 27995946 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-29.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.