Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25755649›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neurology2015

Pitfalls in the neuroimaging of glioblastoma in the era of antiangiogenic and immuno/targeted therapy - detecting illusive disease, defining response.

Raymond Y Huang, Martha R Neagu, David A Reardon, Patrick Y Wen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 158 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. External beam radiation dose escalation for high grade glioma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Nanoceria as Safe Contrast Agents for X-ray CT Imaging.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Raymond Y HuangCenter of Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center , Boston, MA , USA.
Martha R NeaguCenter of Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center , Boston, MA , USA.
David A ReardonCenter of Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center , Boston, MA , USA.
Patrick Y WenCenter of Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center , Boston, MA , USA.
Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glioblastoma, the most common malignant primary brain tumor in adults is a devastating diagnosis with an average survival of 14-16 months using the current standard of care treatment. The determination of treatment response and clinical decision making is based on the accuracy of radiographic assessment. Notwithstanding, challenges exist in the neuroimaging evaluation of patients undergoing treatment for malignant glioma. Differentiating treatment response from tumor progression is problematic and currently combines long-term follow-up using standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with clinical status and corticosteroid-dependency assessments. In the clinical trial setting, treatment with gene therapy, vaccines, immunotherapy, and targeted biologicals similarly produces MRI changes mimicking disease progression. A neuroimaging method to clearly distinguish between pseudoprogression and tumor progression has unfortunately not been found to date. With the incorporation of antiangiogenic therapies, a further pitfall in imaging interpretation is pseudoresponse. The Macdonald criteria that correlate tumor burden with contrast-enhanced imaging proved insufficient and misleading in the context of rapid blood-brain barrier normalization following antiangiogenic treatment that is not accompanied by expected survival benefit. Even improved criteria, such as the RANO criteria, which incorporate non-enhancing disease, clinical status, and need for corticosteroid use, fall short of definitively distinguishing tumor progression, pseudoresponse, and pseudoprogression. This review focuses on advanced imaging techniques including perfusion MRI, diffusion MRI, MR spectroscopy, and new positron emission tomography imaging tracers. The relevant image analysis algorithms and interpretation methods of these promising techniques are discussed in the context of determining response and progression during treatment of glioblastoma both in the standard of care and in clinical trial context.

Indexed as

antiangiogenic therapyglioblastomaimaging techniquesImmunotherapypseudoprogressionpseudoresponse

Identifiers

PMID25755649
PMCPMC4337341
OpenAlexW2079015646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.