Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27357131›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2017

Prognosis prediction of non-enhancing T2 high signal intensity lesions in glioblastoma patients after standard treatment: application of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

Rihyeon Kim, Seung Hong Choi, Tae Jin Yun, Soon-Tae Lee, Chul-Kee Park, Tae Min Kim, Ji-Hoon Kim, Sun-Won Park, Chul-Ho Sohn, Sung-Hye Park and 1 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Imaging in translational cancer research.Cancer biology & medicine · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Imaging in neuro-oncology.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2018
    Review
  19. Article
  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

11 authors.

Rihyeon KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Republic of Korea.
Seung Hong ChoiDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Republic of Korea. verocay@snuh.org.
Tae Jin YunDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Republic of Korea.
Soon-Tae LeeDepartment of Neurology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Chul-Kee ParkDepartment of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Tae Min KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Ji-Hoon KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Republic of Korea.
Sun-Won ParkDepartment of Radiology, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Chul-Ho SohnDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Republic of Korea.
Sung-Hye ParkDepartment of Pathology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Il Han KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify candidate imaging biomarkers for early disease progression in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) patients by analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR parameters of non-enhancing T2 high signal intensity (SI) lesions.

methodsForty-nine GBM patients who had undergone preoperative DCE MR imaging and received standard treatment were retrospectively included. According to the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria, patients were classified into progression (n = 21) or non-progression (n = 28) groups. We analysed the pharmacokinetic parameters of Ktrans, Ve and Vp within non-enhancing T2 high SI lesions of each tumour. The best percentiles of each parameter from cumulative histograms were identified by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and were compared using multivariate stepwise logistic regression.

resultsFor the differentiation of early disease progression, the highest AUC values were found in the 99th percentile of Ktrans (AUC 0.954), the 97th percentile of Ve (AUC 0.815) and the 94th percentile of Vp (AUC 0.786) (all p < 0.05). The 99th percentile of Ktrans was the only significant independent variable from the multivariate stepwise logistic regression (p = 0.002).

conclusionsWe found that the Ktrans of non-enhancing T2 high SI lesions in GBM patients holds potential as a candidate prognostic marker in future prospective studies. KEY POINTS: • DCE MR imaging provides candidate prognostic marker of GBM after standard treatment. • Cumulative histogram was applied to include entire non-enhancing T2 high SI lesions. • The 99th percentile value of Ktrans was the most likely potential biomarker.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaBiomarkersBrainBrain NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionFemaleGlioblastomaHumansImage EnhancementMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesBiomarkersContrast MediaChemoradiotherapyDynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imagingGlioblastomaParameter imagingPrognosis

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.