Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1999 91(6):494-495; doi:10.1093/jnci/91.6.494
© 1999 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hilsenbeck, S. G.
Right arrow Articles by Hoff, D. D. V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hilsenbeck, S. G.
Right arrow Articles by Hoff, D. D. V.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 91, No. 6, 494-495, March 17, 1999
© 1999 Oxford University Press

EDITORIALS

Measure Once or Twice—Does It Really Matter?

Susan G. Hilsenbeck, Daniel D. Von Hoff

Affiliation of authors: University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and the Institute for Drug Development, San Antonio.

Correspondence to: Daniel D. Von Hoff, M.D., Institute for Drug Development, 14960 Omicron, San Antonio, TX 78245.

There is an old carpenter's dictum that one should measure twice (and cut once). Supposedly, this leads to fewer irreversible errors—with wood. The question is, do we have to measure a tumor twice in the practice of medical oncology?

In an article in this issue of the Journal, James et al. (1) conclude that a one-dimensional measurement of tumor maximum diameter (rather than a two-dimensional measurement) may be sufficient to assess the change in solid tumors following treatment. The authors are to be congratulated for taking a new look at the "conventional wisdom" of the way we measure tumors. The question one must ask is, are there any reasons for the general practice of oncology to adopt unidimensional measurement of tumors?

It is true, as pointed out . . . [Full Text of this Article]

REFERENCES


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
L. H. Schwartz, J. A. C. Colville, M. S. Ginsberg, L. Wang, M. Mazumdar, J. Kalaigian, H. Hricak, D. Ilson, and G. K. Schwartz
Measuring tumor response and shape change on CT: esophageal cancer as a paradigm
Ann. Onc., June 1, 2006; 17(6): 1018 - 1023.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
G. Luccichenti, F. Cademartiri, M. Sianesi, L. Roncoroni, P. Pavone, and G. P. Krestin
Radiologic Assessment of Rectosigmoid Cancer Before and After Neoadjuvant Radiation Therapy: Comparison Between Quantitation Techniques
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2005; 184(2): 526 - 530.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
V Trillet-Lenoir, G Freyer, P Kaemmerlen, A Fond, O Pellet, C Lombard-Bohas, J L Gaudin, G Lledo, R Mackiewicz, M C Gouttebel, et al.
Assessment of tumour response to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: accuracy of the RECIST criteria
Br. J. Radiol., November 1, 2002; 75(899): 903 - 908.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
K. James, E. Eisenhauer, and P. Therasse
Re: Measure Once or Twice Does It Really Matter?
J Natl Cancer Inst, October 20, 1999; 91(20): 1780 - 1780.
[Full Text] [PDF]