Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27262709›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2016

Assessment of Brain Tumor Response: RANO and Its Offspring.

Sylvia C Eisele, Patrick Y Wen, Eudocia Q Lee

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04345146 (A Prospective, Phase II Study of Bevacizumab Combined With Fractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy in Patients With 1 to 10 Brain Metastases From Non-small Cell Lung Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT04345146 phase2completednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

A Prospective, Phase II Study of Bevacizumab Combined With Fractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy in Patients With 1 to 10 Brain Metastases From Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorSun Yat-sen UniversityRan2020 to 2023Enrolled100ConditionsNon-small Cell Lung CancerArmsFSRT combined with Bevacizumab
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Molecular MRI-Based Monitoring of Cancer Immunotherapy Treatment Response.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. PotentialFrontiers in oncology · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Surfactin fromJournal of Cancer · 2020
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sylvia C EiseleDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Patrick Y WenDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Eudocia Q LeeDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. EQLEE@PARTNERS.ORG.
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementTreatment options for most nervous system tumors remain limited and patients are often confronted with significant morbidity and reduced life expectancy. However, significant efforts are underway to find more effective therapies for patients with primary and secondary brain tumors. As more and more clinical trials for nervous system tumors are being conducted, it is increasingly important to optimize the conduct of clinical trials in neuro-oncology. One of the key aspects in this regard is the development of objective and standardized criteria that allow for accurate response assessment in clinical trials and prevent the misclassification of responders and non-responders. Such misclassification may lead to premature discontinuation of an actually effective agent, thereby withholding a potentially active treatment from the patient. Conversely, patients may be inappropriately continued on an inactive treatment. Moreover, such misclassification may confound the data obtained in such studies and may lead to false conclusions with regards to the efficacy of the investigated drug. Therefore, reliable response assessment criteria are necessary that not only accurately capture radiographic changes but also account for treatment-related changes and incorporate the assessment of clinical status and quality of life (QoL). The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) working group is an international collaboration of neuro-oncologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, neurosurgeons, neuroradiologists, and regulatory groups (among others) commissioned to develop objective and tumor-specific response criteria for various tumor subtypes. This article reviews the currently available response criteria for high-grade glioma, low-grade glioma, and brain metastases and discusses some of the barriers to accurate assessment of treatment response in neuro-oncology.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrain NeoplasmsDiagnostic ImagingHumansImmunotherapyNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeBevacizumabBrain metastasesBrain tumorGlioblastomaHigh-grade gliomaImmunotherapyLeptomeningeal diseaseLow-grade gliomaMeningiomaPseudoprogressionPseudoresponseRANO criteriaResponse assessmentResponse criteriaSpine metastasesTemozolomide

Identifiers

PMID27262709
OpenAlexW2412254768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.