Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30411280›Full record

ReviewInsights into imaging2018

Brain tumour post-treatment imaging and treatment-related complications.

Alexander T Kessler, Alok A Bhatt

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insights into imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. DEGRO practical guideline for central nervous system radiation necrosis part 1: classification and a multistep approach for diagnosis.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2022
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alexander T KesslerDepartment of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, P.O. Box 648, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA.
Alok A BhattDepartment of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, P.O. Box 648, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA. Alok_Bhatt@urmc.rochester.edu.
University of Rochester Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe imaging of primary and metastatic brain tumours is very complex and relies heavily on advanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Utilisation of these advanced imaging techniques is essential in helping clinicians determine tumour response after initiation of treatment. Many options are currently available to treat brain tumours, and each can significantly alter the brain tumour appearance on post-treatment imaging. In addition, there are several common and uncommon treatment-related complications that are important to identify on standard post-treatment imaging.

methodsThis article provides a review of the various post-treatment-related imaging appearances of brain neoplasms, including a discussion of advanced MR imaging techniques available and treatment response criteria most commonly used in clinical practice. This article also provides a review of the multitude of treatment-related complications that can be identified on routine post-treatment imaging, with an emphasis on radiation-induced, chemotherapy-induced, and post-surgical entities. Although radiological evaluation of brain tumours after treatment can be quite challenging, knowledge of the various imaging techniques available can help the radiologist distinguish treatment response from tumour progression and has the potential to save patients from inappropriate alterations in treatment. In addition, knowledge of common post-treatment-related complications that can be identified on imaging can help the radiologist play a key role in preventing significant patient morbidity/mortality. TEACHING POINTS: • Contrast enhancement does not reliably define tumour extent in many low-grade or infiltrative gliomas. • Focal regions of elevated cerebral blood volume (rCBV) on dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion-weighted imaging are suggestive of tumour growth/recurrence. • Brain tumour treatment response criteria rely on both imaging and clinical parameters. • Chemotherapeutic agents can potentiate many forms of radiation-induced injury. • Ipilimumab-induced hypophysitis results in transient diffuse enlargement of the pituitary gland.

Indexed as

Brain neoplasmsGliomaNeoplasm metastasisRadiotherapyReview

Identifiers

PMID30411280
PMCPMC6269328
OpenAlexW2899889509

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.