Table 4 Correlation between the results of the three different evaluation methods and the Miller–Payne Grading of the lesions
RECIST 1.1 | Combined response evaluation approach | Quantitative objective evaluation approach | Pathological response (Miller–Payne grading) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Stable disease (< 30% decrease in longest tumor diameter) (= Miller–Payne grade 1and 2) | 7/42 (16.7%) | Stable disease | 2/42 patients (4.8%) | Stable disease | 0 patients (0%) | Grade 1 | 1/42 patient (2.4%) |
Poor response | 1/42 patients (2.4 %) | Poor response | 2/42 patients (4.76%) | Grade 2 | 2/42 patients (4.8 %) | ||
Partial response (at least 30% decrease in longest tumor diameter) Correspondent to Miller–Payne grade 3and 4) | 19/42 (45.2%) | Moderate response | 7/42 patients (16.7%) | Moderate response | 7/42 patients (16.67%) | Grade 3 | 8/42 patients (19%) |
Marked response | 16/42 patients (38.1%) | Marked response | 15/42 patients (35.71%) | Grade 4 | 14/42 patients (33.3%) | ||
Complete response (complete disappearance of the lesion; Miller–Payne grade 5) | 16/42 (38.1%) | Complete response | 16/42 patients (38.1 %) | Complete response | 18/42 patients (42.86%) | Grade 5 | 17/42 patients (40.5%) |