<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JCT</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Cancer Therapy</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2151-1934</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/jct.2021.1212061</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">JCT-113816</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Computed Tomography Evaluation of Tumor Response in Oncology in Togo
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Abdoulatif</surname><given-names>Amadou</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Pihou</surname><given-names>Gbande</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ablavi</surname><given-names>Adani-Ifè</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Massaga</surname><given-names>Dagbe</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Icael</surname><given-names>Youaleu</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lantam</surname><given-names>Sonhaye</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lama</surname><given-names>Kedigoma Agoda-Koussema</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5"><sup>5</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Komlanvi</surname><given-names>Adjenou</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff5"><addr-line>Radiology and Medical Imaging Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sylvanus Olympio, Lomé, Togo</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Department of Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sylvanus Olympio, Lomé, Togo</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Radiology and Medical Imaging Department, Centre Hospitalier Régional de Sokodé, Sokodé, Togo</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>Radiology and Medical Imaging Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Kara, Kara, Togo</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Radiology and Medical Imaging Department, Centre Hospitalier Régional Kara, Kara, Togo</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>06</day><month>12</month><year>2021</year></pub-date><volume>12</volume><issue>12</issue><fpage>695</fpage><lpage>707</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>7,</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2021</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>10,</day>	<month>December</month>	<year>2021</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>13,</day>	<month>December</month>	<year>2021</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Cancer is common in our setting and represents a real public health concern in sub-Saharan Africa. This work aimed to assess the role of computed tomography in the follow-up of patients treated for cancer in Togo. This was a retrospective descriptive study carried out over a period of one year, on patients with cancer, treated in the medical oncology unit of 
  CHU 
  Sylvanus Olympio
   and having undergone at least two CT scans after cancer treatment. Computed tomography evaluation was performed according to the RECIST 1.1 guidelines. We had found
  <b> </b>
  46 patients. The mean age of the patients was 54.22 years with a female predominance (sex ratio 1:2.5). Cancers mainly involved the urogenital system (60.8%) followed by the digestive system (28.3%). Carcinoma represented 93.5% of cases, mainly adenocarcinoma (45.7%). 74 target lesions were present at baseline, with 18.9% and 11.6% disappearing at the first and second assessments respectively. 36 non-target lesions were present at baseline, with 25% and 22.2% disappearing at the first and second assessments respectively. New lesions were found in the abdominal region in 54.5% of cases and in the thoracic region in 41.3% at the first and second assessments respectively. 58.7% of patients had a stable disease at the first assessment and 39.1% had progression at the second assessment. 50% of them had received chemotherapy in combination with surgery. Computed tomography using the RECIST 1.1 guidelines is a necessity in monitoring tumor extensions and in the follow-up of cancer patients.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Cancer</kwd><kwd> Response Tumoral</kwd><kwd> Computed Tomography</kwd><kwd> RECIST 1.1</kwd><kwd> Togo</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Cancer is common in our setting and represents a real public health concern in sub-Saharan Africa. It is one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide: there were approximately 18.1 million new cases and 9.6 million cancer-related deaths in 2018 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref1">1</xref>]. Almost one in two deaths worldwide is due to cancer [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref1">1</xref>].</p><p>At the time of the first diagnosis of cancer, the main goal of treatment is to remove the entire tumour, if possible (either as a single treatment or with a combination of surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and sometimes with newer anti-cancer treatments). Cancer treatment is one of the most complex aspects of medical care. It involves a multidisciplinary medical team (general practitioners, gynaecologists or other specialists, oncologists, radiologists, surgeons and pathologists) and many other health professionals. Oncology imaging is therefore integrated into the patient’s care pathway.</p><p>Managing patients with this condition requires a multidisciplinary medical team comprising the radiologist. One of the major challenges of slice imaging in oncology lies in the evaluation of the response to treatment. Standardized treatment response evaluation guidelines are therefore essential in daily clinical practice for therapeutic decision making and treatment monitoring. Thus, the WHO published in 1979 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref2">2</xref>] the first standardized guidelines for evaluating response to therapy based on tumor size. These guidelines were revised in 1990 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref3">3</xref>] and in 2009 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref4">4</xref>] under the name RECIST version 1.1.</p><p>However, despite the rapid development of evaluation guidelines for cancer treatment in oncology, there are few studies in sub-Saharan Africa that have used these guidelines in monitoring cancer treatment. We therefore undertook this work with the aim to evaluate the response to cancer treatment using computed tomography.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Procedures and Ethical Considerations</title><p>Our study was descriptive and retrospective and took place in the medical oncology unit of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sylvanus Olympio (CHU Sylvanus Olympio) in Lom&#233; (Togo) over a period of 12 months, from January to December 2019.</p><p>We included in our study all the files of patients treated for cancer in the oncology department of the CHU Sylvanus Olympio:</p><p>&#183; with a primary cancer found, having benefited from a histological examination.</p><p>&#183; who underwent a CT scan before the start of treatment and at least two CT scans during or after treatment.</p><p>&#183; followed for at least 06 months.</p><p>&#183; have received the following treatments: chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery or targeted therapy.</p><p>For each file, the following data were collected:</p><p>&#183; demographic characteristics.</p><p>&#183; clinical diagnostic, anatomopathologic and therapeutic data.</p><p>&#183; medical imaging data (baseline, first CT scan and second CT scan after treatment).</p><p>All patients had undergone an initial CT scan before onset of cancer treatment and at least two scans after treatment. The time interval between post-treatment CT scans was a minimum of three months.</p><p>The reference measurement plane was that of the longest axial diameter.</p><p>The measurements were taken with a digital ruler in the various medical imaging units. The measurements in millimeters (mm) of the longest diameter of each target lesion on the axial CT sections were recorded. The other “non-target” lesions were noted.</p><p>In total, the target lesions were measured with a maximum of five lesions per patient, two per organ and they were chosen from among the most representative, the most voluminous, and the most reproducible lesions.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Data Collection</title><p>The files were entered into a database designed using Epi Info 7 computer software, with attention to confidentiality and anonymity.</p><p>Tables and graphs were produced using Microsoft Office Excel 2019 and data entry was done using Microsoft Word 2019 software.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Ethical and Deontological Considerations</title><p>To preserve the anonymity of patients, a serial number was assigned to each data collection sheet, thus ensuring the confidentiality of the information collected.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Sociodemographic Data</title><p>During the study period, we identified 46 patients with a malignant tumor who had undergone at least two CT scans after cancer treatment.</p><p>The mean age of the patients was 54.22 years (range 24 - 72 years). The age groups between 50 and 59 years and between 60 and 69 years were the most represented with respectively 12 patients (26%) and 16 patients (34.8%) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>).</p><p>33 patients (71.7%) were female and 13 patients (28.3%) were male, corresponding to a male to female sex ratio of 1:2.5. All male patients were between 50 and 70 years of age (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Topography of Primary Lesions</title><p>Malignant tumors mainly affected the urogenital system with 28 cases (60.8%) and the digestive system with 13 cases (28.3%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Histological Type</title><p>Carcinoma was found in 93.4% of cases (43 cases), followed by lymphoma in</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution according to topography and primary lesion</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Percentage (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ENT*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C11.9 Cavum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Digestive system</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C16 Stomach</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C18 Colon</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C20 Rectum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C25 Pancreas</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Respiratory system</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C 34 Lungs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Genitourinary system</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C 50 Breast</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C 53 Cervix</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C 54 Endometrium</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C 56 Ovary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C 61 Prostate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C 67 Bladder</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Musculoskeletal system</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C49.1 Arm</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C 49.5 Inguinal region</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C 49.5 Buttocks</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>4.4% of cases (2 cases) and sarcoma in 2.2% of cases (1 case).</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Computed Tomography (CT) Assessment</title><p>Target lesions</p><p>During the baseline assessment, 74 target lesions were found (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>).</p><p>At the first assessment, 60 target lesions were found (i.e. a disappearance of 18.9%) in 33 patients (71.7%).</p><p>At the second assessment, target lesions persisted in 29 patients (63%), with a total of 53 target lesions, i.e. 11.6% disappearance from the first assessment.</p><p>The breast cancer was the one with the most significant regression of target lesions (30%) at the 1<sup>st</sup> evaluation and 40% at the 2<sup>nd</sup> evaluation (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p><p>The target lesions predominated in the abdominal region throughout the baseline, the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> assessment in 28.4%, 28.3% and 30.2% of cases respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p><p>Carcinoma was the histologic type that presented the most target lesions</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Evolution of target lesions according to the site of the target lesions</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Baseline</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >First assessment</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Second assessment</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Head and neck</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Thorax</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lungs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Breasts</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abdomen</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Liver</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pancreas</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Stomach</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Peritoneum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Colon</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pelvis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cervix</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Endometrium</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ovary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Prostate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bladder</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Soft tissues</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lymph nodes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>(93.2%; 64 lesions) before treatment, with an 18.8% and 10.7% disappearance of target lesions at the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> assessment respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><p>Cancers of the urogenital system were the most common source of target lesions (68.9%; 51 lesions), with a disappearance of these by 17.6% at the first assessment and 2.3% at the second assessment (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>).</p><p>The target lesions that were treated with chemotherapy only were 43 (58.1%), with a disappearance of 11.6% and 13.15% of them at the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> assessment respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>).</p><p>Non-target lesions</p><p>At the baseline assessment, non-target lesions were present in 25 patients (54.3%), with 36 non-target lesions and were located mainly in the thoracic region in 55.5% of cases (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>).</p><p>At the first assessment, non-target lesions persisted in 25 patients (54.3%), with 27 non-target lesions out of 36, i.e. a disappearance of 25% of the lesions. They were located in the thoracic region in 48.2% of cases (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>).</p><p>At the second assessment, the lesions persisted in 18 patients (39.1%), with 21</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Evolution of lesions according to histological type</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Carcinoma</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sarcoma</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Lymphoma</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Target lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Baseline</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1<sup>st</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2<sup>nd</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Non target lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Baseline</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1<sup>st</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2<sup>nd</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >New lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1<sup>st</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2<sup>nd</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Evolution of lesions according to the site of the primary lesion</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >ENT*</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Digestive</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Respiratory</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >MS</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >GU</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Target lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Baseline</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1<sup>st</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2<sup>nd</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Non-target lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Baseline</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1<sup>st</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2<sup>nd</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >New lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1<sup>st</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2<sup>nd</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>*ENT: Ear, Nose, and Throat.</p><p>non-target lesions out of 27, i.e. a 22.2% disappearance rate. They were found mostly in bones in 52.4% of cases (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>).</p><p>Carcinoma was the histologic type that presented the most non-target lesions (97.2%) before treatment, with a disappearance of non-target lesions of 25.7% at the first assessment and 19.2% at the second. There were no non-target lesions in the sarcoma cases (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><p>Cancers of the urogenital system had the most non-target lesions (83.3% of cases) with a disappearance of 26.6% of them at the first assessment and 36.3% at the second assessment (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Evolution of lesions according to treatment given</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Surgery + Chemotherapy</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Surgery + Chemotherapy + Radiotherapy</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Chemotherapy + Radiotherapy</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Chemotherapy</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Chemotherapy + Radiotherapy + Targeted therapy</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Target lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Baseline</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1<sup>st</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2<sup>nd</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Non-target lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Baseline</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1<sup>st</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2<sup>nd</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >New lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1<sup>st</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2<sup>nd</sup> assessment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution by site of non-target lesions</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Baseline</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >First assessment</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Second assessment</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Thorax Pleurisy Micronodules Septal thickening Alveolar focus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abdominal Ascites Bones Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 10 36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 10 27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 11 21</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Non-target lesions having benefited from surgery and chemotherapy predominated with 16 lesions (44.44%), with a disappearance of 25% of them at the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> assessments (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>).</p><p>New lesions</p><p>At the first assessment, there were 11 new lesions (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>) and they mainly occurred in the abdominal region in 54.5% of cases (6 lesions) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>).</p><p>At the second assessment, there were 29 new lesions and they mainly occurred in the thoracic region (41.3%; 12 lesions) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>).</p><p>Carcinoma was the histologic type responsible for all new lesions (100%) at the first assessment and 96.5% of new lesions (29 lesions) at the second assessment (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution by site of appearance of new lesions</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >First assessment</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Second assessment</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cerebral</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Thoracic</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pulmonary micronodules</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pleurisy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abdominal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hepatic nodules</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Splenic nodule</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ascites</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pelvic</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ovaries</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bones</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lymph nodes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table8" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref></label><caption><title> Evolution of the overall response</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >First assessment</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Second assessment</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Partial response</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Stable disease</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Progression</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Cancers of the urogenital system presented the most new lesions at the first and second assessments, contributing 81.8% of new lesions (9 lesions) and 55.1% of new lesions (16 lesions) respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>).</p><p>New lesions appeared mostly in patients on chemotherapy at the first assessment (45.4%; 5 lesions) and mostly in patients on chemotherapy combined with surgery at the second assessment (65.5%; 29 lesions) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>).</p><p>Overall response</p><p>Patients presented with stable disease in 58.7% of cases (27 patients) at the first assessment and with disease progression and stability in 18 patients (39.1%) at the second assessment (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref>).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>Our study involved 46 patients treated for cancer, whose mean age was 54.22 years. Our results were similar to those of Kone et al. in 2018 in Mali [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref5">5</xref>], Darr&#233; et al. in 2016 in Togo [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref6">6</xref>] and Bourio et al. in 2015 in Senegal [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref7">7</xref>] which reported a mean age of 50, 50.4 and 50 years respectively. This confirms that cancer is more common in adulthood.</p><p>A female predominance was found (72%) in our study with a sex ratio of 1:2.5. This is in line with the studies by Kone et al. in 2018 in Mali [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref5">5</xref>], Goumbri et al. in 2006 in Burkina Faso [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref8">8</xref>], Ndahindwa et al. in 2004 in Rwanda [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref9">9</xref>] and Egue et al. in 2016 in Benin [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref10">10</xref>] which found a female predominance of 83.3%, 54.9%, 54.4% and 56% respectively. This could be explained by the high proportion of gynecomammary cancers in women, and the fact that 51.4% of the general population is made of women according to the fourth general census in Togo [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref11">11</xref>].</p><p>According to literature, radiotherapy is involved in the treatment of around two-thirds of cancers and half of cancers that are curable [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref12">12</xref>]. The percentage of long-term survivors after radiotherapy alone is 27% while surgery alone contributes 50%, surgery + radiotherapy 14%, chemotherapy 3% and chemotherapy + another treatment 6% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref12">12</xref>]. The low rate of patients having received radiotherapy is due to the unavailability of a radiotherapy center in health facilities in Togo. Four patients had received radiotherapy in health facilities of neighboring countries.</p><p>The baseline CT scans revealed a predominance of target lesions in the abdomen (28.4%), specifically in the liver, pancreas, stomach, peritoneum and colon at 13.6%, 2.5%, 5.4%, 5.4% and 1.3% respectively. No primary hepatic tumor was detected during our work; all liver lesions were metastatic lesions. This corroborates the data in literature [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref14">14</xref>] which suggest that the liver is considered as a filter organ in the circulatory system, hence these secondary locations. After treatment, hepatic nodules persisted on both the first and second assessment.</p><p>The prevalence of peritoneal nodules was 5.4% and they were found in four patients, two of whom had cervical cancer, one had colon cancer and the last one had an ovarian cancer. According to literature, peritoneal carcinomatosis resulting from implantation of cells, nodules and even cancerous masses on the abdominal peritoneum is a frequent complication of cancers of the digestive and genital systems, but also to a lesser extent of the urinary system [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref15">15</xref>].</p><p>Lymph node involvement was present in 24.4% of cases. According to the natural history of cancers [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref13">13</xref>], the lymphatic route is the most frequent route of dissemination of carcinomas and the most lymphophilic cancers are carcinomas. This is consistent with the results of our study which indicated carcinoma as the predominant histological type.</p><p>One target lesion was in the brain (1.3%); it was a metastatic lesion in a patient with infiltrative ductal carcinoma of the breast. According to literature [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref16">16</xref>], 5% to 15% of patients with breast cancer develop a secondary brain tumor. This does not occur until later in the course of the metastatic disease and half of such patients would remain asymptomatic. The brain lesion persisted during post-treatment assessment despite radiotherapy, although the treatment administered was the recommended one [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref17">17</xref>].</p><p>Pleurisy (45%), pulmonary micronodules (45%) and alveolar focus (5%) were the main non-target lesions of the thoracic region, representing 55.5% at the baseline assessment. The cancers mainly responsible for these lesions were breast cancer (35%), cervical cancer (25%), endometrial cancer (15%), ovarian cancer (10%), prostate cancer (5%), lung cancer (5%) and stomach cancer (5%). Our results are similar to those of Badri [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref18">18</xref>] who found as primary cancers at the origin of the various pleuropulmonary metastases: breast cancer (27.6%), gastrointestinal cancers (15.8%), genital cancers (9.2%), sarcomas (7.8%), kidney cancer (5.2%), bladder cancer (5.2%), prostate cancer (3.9%), ENT cancers (3.9%), thyroid cancers (3.9%), skin cancer (2.6%) and primary cancer of undetermined origin (14.4%). There was a significant disappearance of these lesions during the second assessment.</p><p>Bone lesions were second to thoracic lesions (27.7%). According to Debiais [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref19">19</xref>] and Bouabid [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref20">20</xref>], it is the third site of cancer metastases after the liver and the lung. Bone metastases are secondary to breast or prostate cancer in 84% of cases, to thyroid cancer in 50% of cases, to lung cancer in 44% of cases and to kidney cancer in 37% of cases [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref21">21</xref>]. In our study, breast cancer was the main source of these lesions (50%). These lesions persisted at the post-treatment evaluation.</p><p>Ascites was the only non-target lesion found in the abdominal area (16.8%). Ovarian cancer was the main source of these lesions (50%) due to the peritoneal location of the ovary. This corroborates the data in literature showing that neoplasms most often associated with malignant ascites are adenocarcinomas of the ovary, breast, colon, stomach and pancreas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref22">22</xref>].</p><p>The new lesions primarily involved the abdominal region at the first assessment (50%), and the thorax at the second assessment (50%). This is consistent with the natural history of cancer [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.113816-ref23">23</xref>] which labels the lungs as filter organs in blood circulation, hence a predominant site for secondary tumors.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>In conclusion, cancers are present in Togo among the population at all ages. Breast and cervical cancers remain the most common. Computed tomography evaluation using the RECIST version 1.1 guidelines makes it possible to follow the evolution of cancerous lesions as well as their extensions, thus playing a crucial role in their management. Most patients had stable disease. Breast cancer was the one with the most significant regression disease.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The authors thank the authorities and the health professionals of campus and Sylvanus Olympio tcheatching Hospitals and surrounding health facilities for their help in data collection and all the participants.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Amadou, A., Gbande, P., Adani-If&#232;, A., Dagbe, M., Youaleu, I., Sonhaye, L., Agoda-Koussema, L.K. and Adjenou, K. (2021) Computed Tomography Evaluation of Tumor Response in Oncology in Togo. Journal of Cancer Therapy, 12, 695-707. https://doi.org/10.4236/jct.2021.1212061</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.113816-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">OMS (2018) Dernières données mondiales sur le cancer: Le fardeau du cancer atteint 18.1 millions de nouveaux cas et 9.6 millions de décès par cancer en 2018.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">WHO (1979) WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. World Health Organization.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Therasse, P., Arbuck, S.G., Eisenhauer, E.A., Wanders, J., Kaplan, R.S., Rubinstein, L., et al. (2000) New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid Tumors. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 92, 205-216. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.3.205</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Eisenhauer, E.A., Therasse, P., Bogaerts, J., Schwartz, L.H., Sargent, D., Ford, R., et al. (2009) New Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours: Revised RECIST Guideline (Version 1.1). European Journal of Cancer, 45, 228-247. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kone, A.S., Diakite, A., Sidibe, F.M., Diabate, K., Diarra, I.M., Camara, M.A., et al. (2018) Particularites epidemiologiques et cliniques des cancers au centre de radiotherapie de l’hopital du Mali. Journal de la Recherche Scientifique de l’Université de Lomé, 20, 453-459.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Darre, T., Kpatcha, T.M., Bagny, A., Maneh, N., Gnandi-Piou, F., Tchangai, B., et al. (2017) Descriptive Epidemiology of Cancers in Togo from 2009 to 2016. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 18, 3407-3411.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bouri, N.V., Ba, O., Dieme, J.L., Mbengue, M., Boye, A., Fall, T., et al. (2017) état des lieux du registre des tumeurs au Sénégal: Bilan à 6 ans d’enregistrement en ligne. Revue des Maladies Respiratoires, 34, A75. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmr.2016.10.156</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Goumbri, O.M., Domagni, O.E., Sanou, A.M., Konsegre, V. and Soudre, R.B. (2009) Aspects épidémiologiques et histopathologiques des cancers au Burkina Faso. Journal Africain du Cancer, 1, Article No. 207.  
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12558-009-0052-x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ndahindwa, V., Ngendahayo, L. and Vyankandondera, J. (2012) Aspects épidémiologiques et anatomopathologiques des cancers dans les centres hospitaliers universitaires (chu) du rwanda. Rwanda Medical Journal, 69, 40-49.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Egue, M., Gnangnon, F.H., Akele-Akpo, M.T. and Parkin, D.M. (2019) Cancer Incidence in Cotonou (Benin), 2014-2016: First Results from the Cancer Registry of Cotonou. Cancer Epidemiology, 59, 46-50.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2019.01.006</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Démographie du Togo. Wikipédia.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Baillet, F. (1999) Radiothérapie: Principes, Indications, Effets Secondaires.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Choi, H., Charnsangavej, C., Faria, S.C., Macapinlac, H.A., Burgess, M.A., Patel, S.R., et al. (2007) Correlation of Computed Tomography and Positron Emission Tomography in Patients with Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Treated at a Single Institution with Imatinib Mesylate: Proposal of New Computed Tomography Response Criteria. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25, 1753-1759. 
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.07.3049</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fritz, A., Percy, C., Jack, A., Shanmugaratnam, K., Sobin, L.H., Parkin, D.M., et al. (2008) Classification internationale des maladies pour l’oncologie. Organisation mondiale de la Santé, Genève.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">OMS (1980) Classification internationale des maladies: Oncologie. No. 345, 169 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Taillibert, S., Conforti, R., Bonneterre, J., Bachelot, T., Le Rhun, E. and Bernard-Marty, C. (2015) Métastases cérébrales de cancer du sein: Traitements systémiques. Cancer/Radiothérapie, 19, 36-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canrad.2014.12.003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ranjan, T. and Abrey, L.E. (2009) Current Management of Metastatic Brain Disease. Neurotherapeutics, 6, 598-603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurt.2009.04.012</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Badri, F., Batahar, S.A., El Idrissi, S., Sajiai, H., Serhane, H. and Amro, L. (2017) Métastases pleuro-pulmonaires des néoplasies extra-thoraciques. Pan African Medical Journal, 26, 7 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Debiais, F. (2015) Données épidémiologiques et cliniques des métastases osseuses. Oncologie, 17, 63-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10269-015-2488-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bouabid, S., Chafry, B., Benchebba, D., Mekkaoui, J. and Boussouga, M. (2016) Métastases osseuses des membres &lt;&lt;démarche diagnostique&gt;&gt;. Revue Marocaine de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique, No. 65, 12-18.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Buijs, J.T. and van der Pluijm, G. (2009) Osteotropic Cancers: From Primary Tumor to Bone. Cancer Letters, 273, 177-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2008.05.044</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kamaté, B., Chawa Djomgwe, A., Sissoko, B.S., Kéita, M., Coulibaly, B., Samaké, K., et al. (2019) Contribution de la cytologie au diagnostic et à l’évaluation du pronostic des ascites métastatiques au mali. Mali Médical, 34, 18-22.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.113816-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Edington, G.M. and Maclean, C.M.U. (1965) A Cancer Rate Survey in Ibadan, Western Nigeria, 1960-63. British Journal of Cancer, 19, 471-481. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1965.55</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>