Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26427832›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2015

Diagnostic Accuracy of PET, SPECT, and Arterial Spin-Labeling in Differentiating Tumor Recurrence from Necrosis in Cerebral Metastasis after Stereotactic Radiosurgery.

G Lai, A Mahadevan, D Hackney, P C Warnke, F Nigim, E Kasper, E T Wong, B S Carter, C C Chen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

G LaiFrom the School of Medicine (G.L., B.S.C., C.C.C.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
A MahadevanDepartments of Radiation Oncology (A.M.).
D HackneyRadiology (D.H.).
P C WarnkeDivision of Neurosurgery (P.C.W.), University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
F NigimDivision of Neurosurgery (F.N., E.K.).
E KasperDivision of Neurosurgery (F.N., E.K.).
E T WongDepartment of Neurology (E.T.W.), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
B S CarterFrom the School of Medicine (G.L., B.S.C., C.C.C.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
C C ChenFrom the School of Medicine (G.L., B.S.C., C.C.C.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California clarkchen@ucsd.edu.
University of California, San Diego · USHarvard University · USRadiation Oncology Associates · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeRadiographic assessment of cerebral metastasis after stereotactic radiosurgery remains a major challenge in neuro-oncology. It is often difficult to distinguish tumor progression from radiation necrosis in this setting using conventional MR imaging. The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of different functional imaging modalities for detecting tumor recurrence after stereotactic radiosurgery. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients treated between 2007 and 2010 and identified 14 patients with cerebral metastasis who had clinical or radiographic progression following stereotactic radiosurgery and were imaged with arterial spin-labeling, FDG-PET, and thallium SPECT before stereotactic biopsy. Diagnostic accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for each imaging technique by using the pathologic diagnosis as the criterion standard.

resultsSix patients (42%) had tumor progression, while 8 (58%) developed radiation necrosis. FDG-PET and arterial spin-labeling were equally sensitive in detecting tumor progression (83%). However, the specificity of arterial spin-labeling was superior to that of the other modalities (100%, 75%, and 50%, respectively). A combination of modalities did not augment the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, or negative predictive value of arterial spin-labeling.

conclusionsIn our series, arterial spin-labeling positivity was closely associated with the pathologic diagnosis of tumor progression after stereotactic radiosurgery. Validation of this finding in a large series is warranted.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBrain NeoplasmsDiagnosis, DifferentialDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNecrosisNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPositron-Emission TomographyRadiation InjuriesRadiosurgeryRetrospective StudiesSpin LabelsSpin Labels

Identifiers

PMID26427832
PMCPMC7964291
OpenAlexW2259346572

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.