Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30413981›Full record

ReviewCurrent oncology reports2018

Pseudoprogression of Melanoma Brain Metastases.

Jillian L Simard, Melanie Smith, Sunandana Chandra

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current oncology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Treating Metastatic Brain Cancers With Stem Cells.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Pseudoprogression and Immunotherapy Phenomena.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology
    Article
  15. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jillian L Simard, Chicago, USA.
Melanie Smith, Chicago, USA.
Sunandana ChandraNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 645 N Michigan Ave, Suite 1006, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. sunandana.chandra@northwestern.edu.
Northwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewImmune checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being used to treat melanoma brain metastases. One potential complication of immune checkpoint inhibitors is a phenomenon called pseudoprogression, in which a tumor transiently increases in size due to lymphocyte infiltration. This article reviews the characteristics of pseudoprogression and their clinical implications. RECENT

findingsPseudoprogression can be challenging to differentiate from true progression noted clinically or radiographically, thereby complicating management decisions and potentially confusing patients and their families. The transient tumor enlargement can also cause symptoms that mimic true tumor progression. Because the use of immunotherapy on melanoma brain metastases is a relatively new treatment paradigm, there is limited evidence to guide clinical decision-making and prognostication related to pseudoprogression.

Indexed as

Disease ProgressionImmunotherapyAntibodies, MonoclonalBrain NeoplasmsHumansMelanomaNeoplasm MetastasisNivolumabAntibodies, MonoclonalNivolumabBrain metastasisImmunotherapyMelanomaPseudoprogression

Identifiers

PMID30413981
OpenAlexW2899568098

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.