“Tumor Load”

I've generally always thought about it the same way as Brian, very subjective; for example, I have always considered myself to have a low tumor burden — but only relative to what I know others have faced.  You may see the term used in a more clinical setting, for example when using the "RECIST criteria" to determine if a certain treatment has resulted in stable disease, disease response (to treatment), or disease progression.  With RECIST, tumors are measured and the size is totaled up, and then compared, usually from scan to scan.  However, it often isn't all tumors included in the total, but a subset of "target lesions".  And even with RECIST, there isn't a scale that says that a tumor load of a certain size implies a low, medium, or high load, it's all relative to an initial baseline.  So in the case of RECIST, a doctor may say, "Your tumor load has decreased by 20%, so you have a partial response."  Again though, in general, it's what Brian said — and certainly what nearly everyone means when they discuss tumor burden/load here on this forum.  

I've generally always thought about it the same way as Brian, very subjective; for example, I have always considered myself to have a low tumor burden — but only relative to what I know others have faced.  You may see the term used in a more clinical setting, for example when using the "RECIST criteria" to determine if a certain treatment has resulted in stable disease, disease response (to treatment), or disease progression.  With RECIST, tumors are measured and the size is totaled up, and then compared, usually from scan to scan.  However, it often isn't all tumors included in the total, but a subset of "target lesions".  And even with RECIST, there isn't a scale that says that a tumor load of a certain size implies a low, medium, or high load, it's all relative to an initial baseline.  So in the case of RECIST, a doctor may say, "Your tumor load has decreased by 20%, so you have a partial response."  Again though, in general, it's what Brian said — and certainly what nearly everyone means when they discuss tumor burden/load here on this forum.  

I've generally always thought about it the same way as Brian, very subjective; for example, I have always considered myself to have a low tumor burden — but only relative to what I know others have faced.  You may see the term used in a more clinical setting, for example when using the "RECIST criteria" to determine if a certain treatment has resulted in stable disease, disease response (to treatment), or disease progression.  With RECIST, tumors are measured and the size is totaled up, and then compared, usually from scan to scan.  However, it often isn't all tumors included in the total, but a subset of "target lesions".  And even with RECIST, there isn't a scale that says that a tumor load of a certain size implies a low, medium, or high load, it's all relative to an initial baseline.  So in the case of RECIST, a doctor may say, "Your tumor load has decreased by 20%, so you have a partial response."  Again though, in general, it's what Brian said — and certainly what nearly everyone means when they discuss tumor burden/load here on this forum.