Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29777418›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2018

Earliest radiological progression in glioblastoma by multidisciplinary consensus review.

Roelant S Eijgelaar, Anna M E Bruynzeel, Frank J Lagerwaard, Domenique M J Müller, Freek R Teunissen, Frederik Barkhof, Marcel van Herk, Philip C De Witt Hamer, Marnix G Witte

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Roelant S EijgelaarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Anna M E BruynzeelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Frank J LagerwaardDepartment of Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Domenique M J MüllerNeurosurgical Center Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Freek R TeunissenNeurosurgical Center Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Frederik BarkhofDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marcel van HerkDivision of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester and Christie NHS Trust, Manchester, UK.
Philip C De Witt HamerNeurosurgical Center Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marnix G WitteDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.witte@nki.nl.
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding VU2014-7113Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 10-10400-96-14003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetection of glioblastoma progression is important for clinical decision-making on cessation or initiation of therapy, for enrollment in clinical trials, and for response measurement in time and location. The RANO-criteria are considered standard for the timing of progression. To evaluate local treatment, we aim to find the most accurate progression location. We determined the differences in progression free survival (PFS) and in tumor volumes at progression (Vprog) by three definitions of progression.

methodsIn a consecutive cohort of 73 patients with newly-diagnosed glioblastoma between 1/1/2012 and 31/12/2013, progression was established according to three definitions. We determined (1) earliest radiological progression (ERP) by retrospective multidisciplinary consensus review using all available imaging and follow-up, (2) clinical practice progression (CPP) from multidisciplinary tumor board conclusions, and (3) progression by the RANO-criteria.

resultsERP was established in 63 (86%), CPP in 64 (88%), RANO progression in 42 (58%). Of the 63 patients who had died, 37 (59%) did with prior RANO-progression, compared to 57 (90%) for both ERP and CPP. The median overall survival was 15.3 months. The median PFS was 8.8 months for ERP, 9.5 months for CPP, and 11.8 months for RANO. The PFS by ERP was shorter than CPP (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.84, p = 0.004) and RANO-progression (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.19-0.43, p < 0.001). The Vprog were significantly smaller for ERP (median 8.8 mL), than for CPP (17 mL) and RANO (22 mL).

conclusionPFS and Vprog vary considerably between progression definitions. Earliest radiological progression by retrospective consensus review should be considered to accurately localize progression and to address confounding of lead time bias in clinical trial enrollment.

Indexed as

BrainBrain NeoplasmsConsensusDisease-Free SurvivalDisease ProgressionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlioblastomaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesGlioblastomaMRIProgression definitionProgression free survivalRANO

Identifiers

PMID29777418
PMCPMC6132963
OpenAlexW2804257339

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.