ArticleNeuro-oncology2014
Challenges for the functional diffusion map in pediatric brain tumors.
Article in Neuro-oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantifying radiation therapy response using apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) parametric mapping of pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma: a report from the pediatric brain tumor consortium.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2019Trial
- Parametric Response Mapping of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient as an Imaging Biomarker to Distinguish Pseudoprogression from True Tumor Progression in Peptide-Based Vaccine Therapy for Pediatric Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2015Article
- sfDM: Open-Source Software for Temporal Analysis and Visualization of Brain Tumor Diffusion MR Using Serial Functional Diffusion Mapping.Cancer informatics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe functional diffusion map (fDM) has been suggested as a tool for early detection of tumor treatment efficacy. We aim to study 3 factors that could act as potential confounders in the fDM: areas of necrosis, tumor grade, and change in tumor size.
methodsThirty-four pediatric patients with brain tumors were enrolled in a retrospective study, approved by the local ethics committee, to examine the fDM. Tumors were selected to encompass a range of types and grades. A qualitative analysis was carried out to compare how fDM findings may be affected by each of the 3 confounders by comparing fDM findings to clinical image reports.
resultsResults show that the fDM in areas of necrosis do not discriminate between treatment response and tumor progression. Furthermore, tumor grade alters the behavior of the fDM: a decrease in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is a sign of tumor progression in high-grade tumors and treatment response in low-grade tumors. Our results also suggest using only tumor area overlap between the 2 time points analyzed for the fDM in tumors of varying size.
conclusionsInterpretation of fDM results needs to take into account the underlying biology of both tumor and healthy tissue. Careful interpretation of the results is required with due consideration to areas of necrosis, tumor grade, and change in tumor size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.