Proposal Part 2: When to use Target vs Non-target as as result?

The results for TU, TUORRES = target, non-target, or new target. This convention was designed for tumor assessment. Target and non-target have very specific definitions depending on the tumor under study. Generally for solid tumor, according to RECIST:

Measurable lesions - lesions that can be accurately measured in at least one dimension with longest diameter  20 mm using conventional techniques or 10 mm with spiral CT scan.

• All measurable lesions up to a maximum of five lesions per organ and 10 lesions in total, representative of all involved organs should be identified as target lesions and recorded and measured at baseline.

Non-measurable lesions - all other lesions, including small lesions (longest diameter <20 mm with conventional techniques or <10 mm with spiral CT scan), i.e., bone lesions, leptomeningeal disease, ascites, pleural/pericardial effusion, inflammatory breast disease, lymphangitis cutis/pulmonis, cystic lesions, and also abdominal masses that are not confirmed and followed by imaging techniques.

• All other lesions (or sites of disease) should be identified as non-target lesions and should also be recorded at baseline. Measurements of these lesions are not required, but the presence or absence of each should be noted throughout follow-up.

Since TU is also shared by Lesion Identification, to have a result as "target" is misleading and doesn't always apply to non-tumor settings. When you say there is a target aneurysm, what does that mean? Target for treatment and response evaluation? what is the criteria that makes it a target? Usually an aneurysm larger than 5cm requires surgery. Does that mean the ones that are smaller than 5 cm are considered "non-target"? and non-target for what? surgery not needed? The values for TU responses right now, doesn't make sense for non-tumor lesion identification process.