Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32048719›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology2020

Consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol for clinical trials in brain metastases.

Timothy J Kaufmann, Marion Smits, Jerrold Boxerman, Raymond Huang, Daniel P Barboriak, Michael Weller, Caroline Chung, Christina Tsien, Paul D Brown, Lalitha Shankar and 10 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 160 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
160citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
15.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

160 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 247 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Improving small brain metastasis detection with composite and augmented TQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 14 institutions in 3 countries.

Timothy J KaufmannDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Marion SmitsDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Jerrold BoxermanDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital and Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Raymond HuangDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Daniel P BarboriakDepartment of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Michael WellerDepartment of Neurology & Brain Tumor Center, University Hospital and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Caroline ChungDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Christina TsienDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Paul D BrownDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Lalitha ShankarDivision of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Evanthia GalanisDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Elizabeth GerstnerDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Martin J van den BentDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Terry C BurnsDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Ian F ParneyDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Gavin DunnDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Washington University, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Priscilla K BrastianosDepartments of Medicine and Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Nancy U LinDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Patrick Y WenCenter for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Benjamin M EllingsonUCLA Brain Tumor Imaging Laboratory, Center for Computer Vision and Imaging Biomarkers, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Mayo Clinic · USHarvard University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USBrown University · USDuke University · USErasmus MC · NLErasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLJohns Hopkins University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USNational Cancer Institute · USNeurological Surgery · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

Women's Cancer Research ProgramP30CA014236 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI JOHN N. NORTON · 1985 to 2026
$174.8M
UCLA SPORE in Brain CancerP50CA211015 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Yvonne Yu-Hsuan Chen · 2017 to 2026
$25.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014236NCI NIH HHS P50 CA211015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recent meeting was held on March 22, 2019, among the FDA, clinical scientists, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, clinical trials cooperative groups, and patient advocacy groups to discuss challenges and potential solutions for increasing development of therapeutics for central nervous system metastases. A key issue identified at this meeting was the need for consistent tumor measurement for reliable tumor response assessment, including the first step of standardized image acquisition with an MRI protocol that could be implemented in multicenter studies aimed at testing new therapeutics. This document builds upon previous consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol (BTIP) in high-grade gliomas and defines a protocol for brain metastases (BTIP-BM) that addresses unique challenges associated with assessment of CNS metastases. The "minimum standard" recommended pulse sequences include: (i) parameter matched pre- and post-contrast inversion recovery (IR)-prepared, isotropic 3D T1-weighted gradient echo (IR-GRE); (ii) axial 2D T2-weighted turbo spin echo acquired after injection of gadolinium-based contrast agent and before post-contrast 3D T1-weighted images; (iii) axial 2D or 3D T2-weighted fluid attenuated inversion recovery; (iv) axial 2D, 3-directional diffusion-weighted images; and (v) post-contrast 2D T1-weighted spin echo images for increased lesion conspicuity. Recommended sequence parameters are provided for both 1.5T and 3T MR systems. An "ideal" protocol is also provided, which replaces IR-GRE with 3D TSE T1-weighted imaging pre- and post-gadolinium, and is best performed at 3T, for which dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion is included. Recommended perfusion parameters are given.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsContrast MediaGadoliniumHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingContrast MediaGadoliniumbrain metastasesimagingMRIprotocol

Identifiers

PMID32048719
PMCPMC7283031
OpenAlexW3005961708

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.