Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25874054›Full record

ArticleIranian journal of neurology2015

Accuracy of magnetic resonance spectroscopy in distinction between radiation necrosis and recurrence of brain tumors.

Mousa Reza Anbarloui, Seyed Mohammad Ghodsi, Alireza Khoshnevisan, Masoud Khadivi, Sina Abdollahzadeh, Ahmad Aoude, Soheil Naderi, Zeynab Najafi, Morteza Faghih-Jouibari

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Iranian journal of neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Pseudoprogression of brain tumors.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2018
    Article
  14. Comprehensive analysis of Iranian reports of pediatric central nervous system tumors.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mousa Reza AnbarlouiDepartment of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Seyed Mohammad GhodsiDepartment of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Alireza KhoshnevisanDepartment of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Masoud KhadiviDepartment of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Sina AbdollahzadehDepartment of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ahmad AoudeDepartment of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Soheil NaderiDepartment of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Zeynab NajafiDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine AND Children's Medical Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Morteza Faghih-JouibariDepartment of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Tehran University of Medical Sciences · IRShariati Hospital · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDistinction between radiation necrosis and recurrence of intraparenchymal tumors is necessary to select the appropriate treatment, but it is often difficult based on imaging features alone. We developed an algorithm for analyzing magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) findings and studied its accuracy in differentiation between radiation necrosis and tumor recurrence.

methodsThirty-three patients with a history of intraparenchymal brain tumor resection and radiotherapy, which had developed new enhancing lesion were evaluated by MRS and subsequently underwent reoperation. Lesions with Choline (Cho)/N-acetyl aspartate (NAA) > 1.8 or Cho/Lipid > 1 were considered as tumor recurrence and the remaining as radiation necrosis. Finally, pre-perative MRS diagnoses were compared with histopathological report.

resultsThe histological diagnosis was recurrence in 25 patients and necrosis in 8 patients. Mean Cho/NAA in recurrent tumors was 2.72, but it was 1.46 in radiation necrosis (P < 0.01). Furthermore, Cho/Lipid was significantly higher in recurrent tumors (P < 0.01) with the mean of 2.78 in recurrent tumors and 0.6 in radiation necrosis. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the algorithm for detecting tumor recurrence were 84%, 75% and 81%, respectively.

conclusionMRS is a safe and informative tool for differentiating between tumor recurrence and radiation necrosis.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance SpectroscopyRadiation NecrosisTumor Recurrence

Identifiers

PMID25874054
PMCPMC4395804
OpenAlexW2184381253

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.