Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25333475›Full record

ArticleRadiology2015

Glioblastoma treated with concurrent radiation therapy and temozolomide chemotherapy: differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression with quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

Tae Jin Yun, Chul-Kee Park, Tae Min Kim, Se-Hoon Lee, Ji-Hoon Kim, Chul-Ho Sohn, Sung-Hye Park, Il Han Kim, Seung Hong Choi

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Advanced MR Techniques for Preoperative Glioma Characterization: Part 1.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2023
    Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Tae Jin YunFrom the Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea (T.J.Y., J.H.K., C.H.S., S.H.C.); Department of Radiology (T.J.Y., J.H.K., C.H.S., S.H.C.), Department of Neurosurgery (C.K.P.), Department of Internal Medicine, Cancer Research Institute (T.M.K., S.H.L.), Department of Pathology (S.H.P.), and Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Research Institute (I.H.K.), Seoul National University Hospital, 28 Yongon-dong, Chongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Republic of Korea; Center for Nanoparticle Research, Institute for Basic Science, Seoul, Republic of Korea (S.H.C.); and School of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea (S.H.C.).
Chul-Kee Park
Tae Min Kim
Se-Hoon Lee
Ji-Hoon Kim
Chul-Ho Sohn
Sung-Hye Park
Il Han Kim
Seung Hong Choi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo explore the role of dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma on the basis of findings in entirely newly developed or enlarged enhancing lesions after concurrent radiation therapy and chemotherapy with temozolomide and to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters obtained at dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, such as the volume transfer constant (K(trans)), the extravascular extracellular space per unit volume of tissue(ve), and the blood plasma volume per unit volume of tissue(vp). MATERIALS AND

methodsThis prospective study had institutional review board approval; written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Thirty-three patients with histopathologically proven glioblastoma who had undergone concurrent radiation therapy and chemotherapy with temozolomide were included. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging-derived pharmacokinetic parameters, including K(trans), ve, and vp, were calculated for newly developed or enlarged enhancing lesions. Pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the true progression (n = 17) and pseudoprogression (n = 16) groups by using unpaired t tests and then multivariable analysis.

resultsThe mean K(trans) and ve were higher in the true progression group than in the pseudoprogression group (mean K(trans), 0.44 min(-1) ± 0.25 [standard deviation] and 0.23 min(-1) ± 0.10 for true progression and pseudoprogression groups, respectively, P = .004; and mean ve, 1.26 ± 0.78 and 0.75 ± 0.49 for true progression and pseudoprogression groups, respectively, P = .034). Multivariable analysis showed that mean K(trans) was the only independently differentiating variable (P = .004).

conclusionDynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging-derived pharmacokinetic parameters, including K(trans) and ve, in the entire newly developed or enlarged enhancing lesion may be useful objective diagnostic tools in the differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma who have undergone concurrent radiation therapy and chemotherapy with temozolomide.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingBrain NeoplasmsCombined Modality TherapyDacarbazineDisease ProgressionFemaleGlioblastomaHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesAntineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingContrast MediaDacarbazineTemozolomide

Identifiers

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.