Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29734497›Full record

ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2018

Pseudoprogression of brain tumors.

Stefanie C Thust, Martin J van den Bent, Marion Smits

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 163 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
163citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

163 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Imaging of tumour response to immunotherapy.European radiology experimental · 2020
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Biological tumor volume predicts survival in recurrent High-Grade glioma: A multiparametric [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

103 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Stefanie C ThustLysholm Neuroradiology Department, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Martin J van den BentDepartment of Neurology, The Brain Tumor Centre at Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marion SmitsDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review describes the definition, incidence, clinical implications, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of pseudoprogression of brain tumors, in particular, but not limited to, high-grade glioma. Pseudoprogression is an important clinical problem after brain tumor treatment, interfering not only with day-to-day patient care but also the execution and interpretation of clinical trials. Radiologically, pseudoprogression is defined as a new or enlarging area(s) of contrast agent enhancement, in the absence of true tumor growth, which subsides or stabilizes without a change in therapy. The clinical definitions of pseudoprogression have been quite variable, which may explain some of the differences in reported incidences, which range from 9-30%. Conventional structural MRI is insufficient for distinguishing pseudoprogression from true progressive disease, and advanced imaging is needed to obtain higher levels of diagnostic certainty. Perfusion MRI is the most widely used imaging technique to diagnose pseudoprogression and has high reported diagnostic accuracy. Diagnostic performance of MR spectroscopy (MRS) appears to be somewhat higher, but MRS is less suitable for the routine and universal application in brain tumor follow-up. The combination of MRS and diffusion-weighted imaging and/or perfusion MRI seems to be particularly powerful, with diagnostic accuracy reaching up to or even greater than 90%. While diagnostic performance can be high with appropriate implementation and interpretation, even a combination of techniques, however, does not provide 100% accuracy. It should also be noted that most studies to date are small, heterogeneous, and retrospective in nature. Future improvements in diagnostic accuracy can be expected with harmonization of acquisition and postprocessing, quantitative MRI and computer-aided diagnostic technology, and meticulous evaluation with clinical and pathological data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018.

Indexed as

brain neoplasmsdiffusiongliomamagnetic resonance imagingMRIperfusion weightedproton magnetic resonance spectroscopy

Identifiers

PMID29734497
PMCPMC6175399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.