Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29383433›Full record

ArticleNeuroradiology2018

Volumetric assessment of tumor size changes in pediatric low-grade gliomas: feasibility and comparison with linear measurements.

Felice D'Arco, Patricia O'Hare, Fatima Dashti, Alvaro Lassaletta, Thalia Loka, Uri Tabori, Giacomo Talenti, Stefanie Thust, Giancarlo Messalli, Patrick Hales and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroradiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Everolimus for Children With Recurrent or Progressive Low-Grade Glioma: Results From the Phase II PNOC001 Trial.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

12 authors.

Felice D'ArcoPediatric Neuroradiology, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. darcofel@gmail.com.
Patricia O'HareDepartment of Pediatric Oncology, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK.
Fatima DashtiPediatric Neuroradiology, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Alvaro LassalettaDivision of Pediatric Neuro-oncology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Thalia LokaDepartment of Pediatric Oncology, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK.
Uri TaboriDivision of Pediatric Neuro-oncology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Giacomo TalentiDepartment of Pediatric Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Trust, London, WC1N 3JH, UK.
Stefanie ThustNational Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London, UK.
Giancarlo MessalliRadiology Unit, "Villa Malta" Hospital, Sarno, Italy.
Patrick HalesDevelopmental Imaging and Biophysics Section, Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Eric BouffetDivision of Pediatric Neuro-oncology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Suzanne LaughlinPediatric Neuroradiology, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe report a retrospective comparison between bi-dimensional RANO criteria and manual volumetric segmentation (MVS) in pediatric low-grade gliomas.

methodsMRI FLAIR or T1 post contrast images were used for assessment of tumor response. Seventy patients were included in this single center study, for each patient two scans were assessed ("time 0" and "end of therapy") and response to therapy was evaluated for both methods. Inter-reader variability and average time for volumetric assessment were also calculated.

resultsFourteen (20%) of the 70 patients had discordant results in terms of response assessment between the bi-dimensional measurements and MVS. All volumetric response assessments were in keeping with the subjective analysis of tumor (radiology report). Of the 14 patients, 6 had stable disease (SD) on MVS and progressive disease (PD) on 2D assessment, 5 patients had SD on MVS and partial response (PR) on 2D assessment, 2 patients had PD on MVS and SD on 2D assessment, and 1 patient had PR on MVS and SD on 2D analysis. The number of discordant results rises to 21(30%) if minor response is integrated in the response assessment. MVS was relatively fast and showed high inter-reader concordance.

conclusionOur analysis shows that therapeutic response classification may change in a significant number of children by performing a volumetric tumor assessment. Furthermore, MVS is not particularly time consuming and has very good inter-reader concordance.

Indexed as

AdolescentAntineoplastic Agents, PhytogenicBrain NeoplasmsChildChild, PreschoolFemaleGliomaHumansInfantMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeoplasm GradingRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeTumor BurdenVinblastineAntineoplastic Agents, PhytogenicVinblastineMRIPediatric low-grade gliomasRANOTumor responseVolumetric

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.