Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28384170›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Differentiation of pseudoprogression and real progression in glioblastoma using ADC parametric response maps.

Caroline Reimer, Katerina Deike, Markus Graf, Peter Reimer, Benedikt Wiestler, Ralf Omar Floca, Philipp Kickingereder, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Wolfgang Wick, Martin Bendszus and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sequences and Technologies in Adaptive Radiation Therapy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

11 authors.

Caroline ReimerDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Heidelberg Medical Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Katerina DeikeDepartment of Radiology, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus GrafDepartment of Radiology, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Peter ReimerInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Karlsruhe, Academic Teaching Hospital of the University of Freiburg, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Benedikt WiestlerDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Heidelberg Medical Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ralf Omar FlocaDepartment of Radiology, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Philipp KickingerederDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Heidelberg Medical Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heinz-Peter SchlemmerDepartment of Radiology, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Wolfgang WickDepartment of Neurology, University of Heidelberg Medical Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Martin BendszusDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Heidelberg Medical Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Alexander RadbruchDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Heidelberg Medical Center, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate whether a voxel-wise analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values may differentiate between progressive disease (PD) and pseudoprogression (PsP) in patients with high-grade glioma using the parametric response map, a newly introduced postprocessing tool.

methodsTwenty-eight patients with proven PD and seven patients with PsP were identified in this retrospective feasibility study. For all patients ADC baseline and follow-up maps on four subsequent MRIs were available. ADC maps were coregistered on contrast enhanced T1-weighted follow-up images. Subsequently, enhancement in the follow-up contrast enhanced T1-weighted image was manually delineated and a reference region of interest (ROI) was drawn in the contralateral white matter. Both ROIs were transferred to the ADC images. Relative ADC (rADC) (baseline)/reference ROI values and rADC (follow up)/reference ROI values were calculated for each voxel within the ROI. The corresponding voxels of rADC (follow up) and rADC (baseline) were subtracted and the percentage of all voxels within the ROI that exceeded the threshold of 0.25 was quantified.

resultsrADC voxels showed a decrease of 59.2% (1st quartile (Q1) 36.7; 3rd quartile (Q3) 78.6) above 0.25 in patients with PD and 18.6% (Q1 3.04; Q3 26.5) in patients with PsP (p = 0.005). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed the optimal decreasing rADC cut-off value for identifying PD of > 27.05% (area under the curve 0.844±0.065, sensitivity 0.86, specificity 0.86, p = 0.014).

conclusionThis feasibility study shows that the assessment of rADC using parametric response maps might be a promising approach to contribute to the differentiation between PD and PsP. Further research in larger patient cohorts is necessary to finally determine its clinical utility.

Indexed as

AgedBrain MappingBrain NeoplasmsDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingDisease ProgressionFemaleGlioblastomaHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID28384170
PMCPMC5383222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.