Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27329522›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2017

Glioblastoma: does the pre-treatment geometry matter? A postcontrast T1 MRI-based study.

Julián Pérez-Beteta, Alicia Martínez-González, David Molina, Mariano Amo-Salas, Belén Luque, Elena Arregui, Manuel Calvo, José M Borrás, Carlos López, Marta Claramonte and 19 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Evolutionary dynamics at the tumor edge reveal metabolic imaging biomarkers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

29 authors.

Julián Pérez-BetetaLaboratory of Mathematical Oncology, Edificio Politécnico, Instituto de Matemática Aplicada a la Ciencia y la Ingeniería, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Avenida de Camilo José Cela, 3, 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain. Julian.Perez@uclm.es.
Alicia Martínez-GonzálezLaboratory of Mathematical Oncology, Edificio Politécnico, Instituto de Matemática Aplicada a la Ciencia y la Ingeniería, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Avenida de Camilo José Cela, 3, 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain.
David MolinaLaboratory of Mathematical Oncology, Edificio Politécnico, Instituto de Matemática Aplicada a la Ciencia y la Ingeniería, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Avenida de Camilo José Cela, 3, 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Mariano Amo-SalasLaboratory of Mathematical Oncology, Edificio Politécnico, Instituto de Matemática Aplicada a la Ciencia y la Ingeniería, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Avenida de Camilo José Cela, 3, 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Belén LuqueLaboratory of Mathematical Oncology, Edificio Politécnico, Instituto de Matemática Aplicada a la Ciencia y la Ingeniería, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Avenida de Camilo José Cela, 3, 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Elena ArreguiHospital General de Ciudad Real, c/ Obispo Rafael Torija, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Manuel CalvoHospital General de Ciudad Real, c/ Obispo Rafael Torija, Ciudad Real, Spain.
José M BorrásHospital General de Ciudad Real, c/ Obispo Rafael Torija, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Carlos LópezHospital General de Ciudad Real, c/ Obispo Rafael Torija, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Marta ClaramonteHospital General de Ciudad Real, c/ Obispo Rafael Torija, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Juan A BarciaHospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Lidia IglesiasHospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Josué AvecillasHospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
David AlbilloHospital Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Miguel NavarroHospital Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
José M VillanuevaHospital Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Juan C PaniaguaHospital Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Juan MartinoHospital Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain.
Carlos VelásquezHospital Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain.
Beatriz AsenjoHospital Carlos Haya, Málaga, Spain.
Manuel BenavidesHospital Carlos Haya, Málaga, Spain.
Ismael HerruzoHospital Carlos Haya, Málaga, Spain.
María Del Carmen DelgadoFacultad de Matemáticas, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain.
Ana Del ValleFacultad de Matemáticas, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain.
Anthony FalkovAuckland Radiation Oncology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Philippe SchuchtNeurosurgery Department, Bern Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland.
Estanislao AranaInstituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain.
Luis Pérez-RomasantaHospital Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Víctor M Pérez-GarcíaLaboratory of Mathematical Oncology, Edificio Politécnico, Instituto de Matemática Aplicada a la Ciencia y la Ingeniería, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Avenida de Camilo José Cela, 3, 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe potential of a tumour's volumetric measures obtained from pretreatment MRI sequences of glioblastoma (GBM) patients as predictors of clinical outcome has been controversial. Mathematical models of GBM growth have suggested a relation between a tumour's geometry and its aggressiveness.

methodsA multicenter retrospective clinical study was designed to study volumetric and geometrical measures on pretreatment postcontrast T1 MRIs of 117 GBM patients. Clinical variables were collected, tumours segmented, and measures computed including: contrast enhancing (CE), necrotic, and total volumes; maximal tumour diameter; equivalent spherical CE width and several geometric measures of the CE "rim". The significance of the measures was studied using proportional hazards analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves.

resultsKaplan-Meier and univariate Cox survival analysis showed that total volume [p = 0.034, Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.574], CE volume (p = 0.017, HR = 1.659), spherical rim width (p = 0.007, HR = 1.749), and geometric heterogeneity (p = 0.015, HR = 1.646) were significant parameters in terms of overall survival (OS). Multivariable Cox analysis for OS provided the later two parameters as age-adjusted predictors of OS (p = 0.043, HR = 1.536 and p = 0.032, HR = 1.570, respectively).

conclusionPatients with tumours having small geometric heterogeneity and/or spherical rim widths had significantly better prognosis. These novel imaging biomarkers have a strong individual and combined prognostic value for GBM patients. KEY POINTS: • Three-dimensional segmentation on magnetic resonance images allows the study of geometric measures. • Patients with small width of contrast enhancing areas have better prognosis. • The irregularity of contrast enhancing areas predicts survival in glioblastoma patients.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrain NeoplasmsContrast MediaFemaleGlioblastomaHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalKaplan-Meier EstimateMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsContrast MediaContrast enhancementGBM geometryGlioblastomaMathematical modelPredictors of survival

Identifiers

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.