Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23529375›Full record

ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2013

Response assessment criteria for glioblastoma: practical adaptation and implementation in clinical trials of antiangiogenic therapy.

Olivier L Chinot, David R Macdonald, Lauren E Abrey, Gudrun Zahlmann, Yannick Kerloëguen, Timothy F Cloughesy

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

71 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Anti-angiogenic therapy for high-grade glioma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

11 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

6 authors.

Olivier L ChinotAix-Marseille University, AP-HM, Service de Neuro-Oncologie, CHU Timone, 264 Rue Saint Pierre, 13005, Marseille, France. olivier.chinot@ap-hm.fr
David R Macdonald
Lauren E Abrey
Gudrun Zahlmann
Yannick Kerloëguen
Timothy F Cloughesy

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since 1990, the primary criteria used for assessing response to therapy in high-grade gliomas were those developed by Macdonald and colleagues, which incorporated 2-dimensional area measurements of contrast-enhancing tumor regions, corticosteroid dosing, and clinical assessment to arrive at a designation of response, stable disease, or progression. Recent advances in imaging technology and targeted therapeutics, however, have exposed limitations of the Macdonald criteria and have highlighted the need for reevaluation of response assessment criteria. In 2010, the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group published updated criteria to address this need and to standardize response assessment for high-grade gliomas. In 2009, prior to the publication of the RANO criteria, the randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 AVAglio trial was designed and initiated to investigate the effectiveness of radiotherapy and temozolomide with or without bevacizumab in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. The AVAglio protocol enacted specific measures to adapt the Macdonald criteria to the frontline treatment setting and to antiangiogenic agent evaluation, including the incorporation of a T2/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery component, qualitative assessment of irregularly shaped contrast-enhancing lesions, and a decision tree for confirming or ruling out pseudoprogression. Moreover, the protocol outlines practical means by which these adapted response criteria can be implemented in the clinic. This article describes the evolution of radiographic response criteria for high-grade gliomas and highlights the similarities and differences between those implemented in the AVAglio study and those subsequently published by RANO.

Indexed as

Angiogenesis InhibitorsBrain NeoplasmsClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicDisease ProgressionDouble-Blind MethodGlioblastomaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAngiogenesis Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID23529375
PMCPMC3631110

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.