Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29508242›Full record

ArticleLa Radiologia medica2018

Dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion MRI in differential diagnosis between radionecrosis and neoangiogenesis in cerebral metastases using rCBV, rCBF and K2.

Mario Muto, Giulia Frauenfelder, Rossana Senese, Fabio Zeccolini, Emiliano Schena, Francesco Giurazza, Hans Rolf Jäger

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in La Radiologia medica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Are Dual-PhaseCancers · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Brain metastases: the role of clinical imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mario MutoDepartment of Neuroradiology, AONR Cardarelli, Via Antonio Cardarelli, 9, 80100, Naples, Italy.
Giulia FrauenfelderDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 200, 00128, Rome, Italy. g.frauenfelder@unicampus.it.
Rossana SeneseEmicenter European Medical Imaging, Via Taverna Rossa, 169, 80020, Casavatore, Napoli, Italy.
Fabio ZeccoliniDepartment of Neuroradiology, AONR Cardarelli, Via Antonio Cardarelli, 9, 80100, Naples, Italy.
Emiliano SchenaDepartment of Measurement and Biomedical Instrumentation, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Francesco GiurazzaDepartment of Interventional Radiology, AONR Cardarelli, Via Antonio Cardarelli, 9, 80100, Naples, Italy.
Hans Rolf JägerNeuroradiological Academic Unit, Department of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
Ospedale Antonio Cardarelli · ITUniversità Campus Bio-Medico · ITNational Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDistinction between treatment-related changes and tumour recurrence in patients who have received radiation treatment for brain metastases can be difficult on conventional MRI. In this study, we investigated the ability of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion in differentiating necrotic changes from pathological angiogenesis and compared measurements of relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV), relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF) and K2, using a dedicated software.

methodsTwenty-nine patients with secondary brain tumors were included in this retrospective study and underwent DSC perfusion MRI with a 3-month follow-up imaging after chemo- or radiation-therapy. Region-of-interests were drawn around the contrast enhancing lesions and measurements of rCBV, rCBF and K2 were performed in all patients. Based on subsequent histological examination or clinico-radiological follow-up, the cohort was divided in two groups: recurrent disease and stable disease. Differences between the two groups were analyzed using the Student's t test. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of rCBV measurements were analyzed considering three different cut-off values.

resultsBetween patients with and without disease, only rCBV and rCBF values were significant (p < 0.05). The only cut-off value giving the best diagnostic accuracy of 100% was rCBV = 2.1 (sensitivity = 100%; specificity = 100%). Patients with tumor recurrence showed a higher mean value of rCBV (mean = 4.28, standard deviation = 2.09) than patients with necrotic-related changes (mean = 0.77, standard deviation = 0.44).

conclusionDSC-MRI appears a clinically useful method to differentiate between tumor recurrence, tumor necrosis and pseudoprogression in patients treated for cerebral metastases. Relative CBV using a cut-off value of 2.1 proved to be the most accurate and reliable parameter.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBlood VolumeBrain NeoplasmsCapillary PermeabilityCerebrovascular CirculationContrast MediaDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance AngiographyMaleMiddle AgedNecrosisNeovascularization, PathologicRadiation InjuriesContrast MediaBrainCerebral blood volumeFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNeoplasm metastasesPerfusion

Identifiers

PMID29508242
OpenAlexW2793214654

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.