ReviewTranslational pediatrics2014
Permeability imaging in pediatric brain tumors.
Review in Translational pediatrics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The use of 5-aminolevulinic acid in resection of pediatric brain tumors: a critical review.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2019Pooled it
- A comparison of pseudo-continuous arterial spin labelling and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI with and without contrast agent leakage correction in paediatric brain tumours.The British journal of radiology · 2019Article
- T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced brain magnetic resonance imaging: A preliminary study with low infusion rate in pediatric patients.The neuroradiology journal · 2017Article
- Pediatric brain MRI, Part 2: Advanced techniques.Pediatric radiology · 2017Review
- Automated Processing of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI: Correlation of Advanced Pharmacokinetic Metrics with Tumor Grade in Pediatric Brain Tumors.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2017Article
- Knockdown of HMGB1 improves apoptosis and suppresses proliferation and invasion of glioma cells.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While traditional computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging illustrate the structural morphology of brain pathology, newer, dynamic imaging techniques are able to show the movement of contrast throughout the brain parenchyma and across the blood-brain barrier (BBB). These data, in combination with pharmacokinetic models, can be used to investigate BBB permeability, which has wide-ranging applications in the diagnosis and management of central nervous system (CNS) tumors in children. In the first part of this paper, we review the technical principles underlying four imaging modalities used to evaluate BBB permeability: PET, dynamic CT, dynamic T1-weighted contrast-enhanced MR imaging, and dynamic T2-weighted susceptibility contrast MR. We describe the data that can be derived from each method, provide some caveats to data interpretation, and compare the advantages and disadvantages of the different techniques. In the second part of this paper, we review the clinical applications that have been reported with permeability imaging data, including diagnosing the nature of a lesion found on imaging (neoplastic versus non-neoplastic, tumor type, tumor grade, recurrence versus pseudoprogression), predicting the natural history of a tumor, monitoring angiogenesis and tracking response to anti-angiogenic agents, optimizing chemotherapy agent selection, and aiding in the development of new antineoplastic drugs and methods to increase local delivery of chemotherapeutics.
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.