摘要
目的评价WHO标准与RECIST标准对恶性肿瘤治疗疗效评价的一致性。方法分别采用WHO标准和RECIST标准对137例接受治疗或随访的恶性肿瘤患者的疗效进行评估。测量肿瘤最长径和最大垂直径，分别以最长径与最大垂直径乘积之和、最长径之和评价疗效。疗效分为完全缓解、部分缓解、疾病稳定、疾病进展。使用妒检验比较两种疗效评价标准的结果。结果共测量268个病灶。两种标准在120例（87．6％）患者中的疗效评价一致，采用RECIST标准在13例患者中评价较WHO标准提高，另外4例患者的评价降低。两种标准评价治疗的总有效率和疾病进展率差异均无统计学意义。结论RECIST标准与WHO标准具有较好的一致性。RECIST标准较WHO标准简单易用，可用于恶性肿瘤治疗疗效的评价。
Objective To evaluate the agreement of treatment response between WHO and RECIST criteria for malignant tumor. Methods The treatment response rate of 137 patients with malignant tumor was evaluated by WHO and RECIST criteria respectively. The largest diameter and perpendicular diameter of tumor were measured. The curative effect was calculated by the product of muhiplication of the largest perpendicular diameters and the sum of the largest diameters respectively. The response evaluation was categorized into CR, PR, SD and PD according to WHO and RECIST criteria. Differences in response assessment between the two techniques were compared statistically according to the X2 test. Results A total of 268 lesions were analyzed. The two techniques were concordant in 120 classifications（ 87.6% ）. The response assessment produced by RECIST was improved compared with that of WHO criteria in 13 patients, and worse in 4 patients, respectively. There was no significant difference between the total effective rate and the progressive rate judged by the two criteria. Conclusion There is a good agreement between WHO and RECIST criteria. RECIST is simpler and easier than WHO criteria, and it is appropriate for assessing the treatment response in malignant tumor
出处
《中国基层医药》
CAS
2013年第5期652-654,共3页
Chinese Journal of Primary Medicine and Pharmacy
基金
江苏省常熟市卫生局科技计划指导性项目（201121）
