Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16443946›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology2006

Comparison of linear and volumetric criteria in assessing tumor response in adult high-grade gliomas.

Gaurav D Shah, Santosh Kesari, Ronghui Xu, Tracy T Batchelor, Alison M O'Neill, Fred H Hochberg, Brenda Levy, Joanna Bradshaw, Patrick Y Wen

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

102 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 195 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. BRAF Inhibition inJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2018
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Assessment of objective responses using volumetric evaluation in advanced thymic malignancies and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2011
    Trial
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Gaurav D ShahBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Santosh Kesari
Ronghui Xu
Tracy T Batchelor
Alison M O'Neill
Fred H Hochberg
Brenda Levy
Joanna Bradshaw
Patrick Y Wen
Massachusetts General Hospital · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USMass General Brigham · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USHospitality Homes · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, or RECIST criteria (one-dimensional [1D] measurement), are widely used to measure response in tumors, but there are few studies evaluating these criteria in brain tumors. We compared linear and volumetric measurements in adult high-grade supratentorial enhancing gliomas to determine the agreement between measurements, in defining responses and in their subsequent relation to survival. We hypothesized that the 1D RECIST criteria maybe suitable for response assessment in adult high-grade gliomas. Tumor size on MRI scans in 104 patients with high-grade enhancing gliomas treated on clinical trial protocols was measured by using 1D (greatest length), 2D (two-dimensional: product of the two longest perpendicular diameters), 3D (three dimensional: product of the longest perpendicular diameters in one plane and the longest orthogonal diameter to that plane), enhancing volume (EV), and total volume (TV). A total of 388 T1 postgadolinium MRI scans (104 baseline and 284 follow-up scans) were evaluated. Volumetric analysis (EV and TV) was performed with commercially available software. Intraobserver and interobserver correlations (rho) were high for all modalities (rho > 0.92 and rho > 0.71, respectively). Correlation was excellent (rho > 0.9) among all modalities except for 3D (rho < 0.6). Patient response rates ranged from 12% to 26%. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) and six-month progression-free survival (6mPFS) were not significantly different among the methods (range, 5.3 months to 5.9 months and 42% to 48%, respectively). Landmark analyses of response at two months using linear methods predicted overall survival with hazard ratios of 0.19 to 0.29 (P < 0.005). These results suggest high concordance among 1D, 2D, TV, and EV, but not 3D, methods in assessing enhancing tumor progression and in estimating mPFS and 6mPFS in adult brain tumor patients. The tumor response at two months assessed by linear methods correlated better with overall survival. Thus, linear methods are comparable to volumetric methods, but simpler to implement for routine clinical use and for designing clinical trials of brain tumors.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrain NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleGliomaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRadiographyTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID16443946
PMCPMC1871928
OpenAlexW1968287404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.