Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31133966›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neurology2019

Assessment of Glioblastoma Response in the Era of Bevacizumab: Longstanding and Emergent Challenges in the Imaging Evaluation of Pseudoresponse.

Octavio D Arevalo, Carolina Soto, Pejman Rabiei, Arash Kamali, Leomar Y Ballester, Yoshua Esquenazi, Jay-Jiguang Zhu, Roy Francisco Riascos

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
–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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Artificial intelligence-based MRI radiomics and radiogenomics in glioma.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Octavio D ArevaloDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States.
Carolina SotoFaculty of Medicine, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.
Pejman RabieiDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States.
Arash KamaliDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States.
Leomar Y BallesterDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States.
Yoshua EsquenaziVivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States.
Jay-Jiguang ZhuVivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States.
Roy Francisco RiascosDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glioblastoma is the deadliest primary malignant brain neoplasm, and despite the availability of many treatment options, its prognosis remains somber. Enhancement detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was considered the best imaging marker of tumor activity in glioblastoma for decades. However, its role as a surrogate marker of tumor viability has changed with the appearance of new treatment regimens and imaging modalities. The antiangiogenic therapy created an inflection point in the imaging assessment of glioblastoma response in clinical trials and clinical practice. Although BEV led to the improvement of enhancement, it did not necessarily mean tumor response. The decrease in the enhancement intensity represents a change in the permeability properties of the blood brain barrier, and presumably, the switch of the tumor growth pattern to an infiltrative non-enhancing phenotype. New imaging techniques for the assessment of cellularity, blood flow hemodynamics, and biochemistry have emerged to overcome this hurdle; nevertheless, designing tools to assess tumor response more accurately, and in so doing, improve the assessment of response to standard of care (SOC) therapies and to novel therapies, remains challenging.

Indexed as

bevacizumabdiffusion tensor imaging (DTI)diffusion weighted imaging (DWI)MRI imagingMR spectroscopyperfusion-weighted imagingpseudoresponsesusceptibility weighted imaging (SWI)

Identifiers

PMID31133966
PMCPMC6514158

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.