Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32488924›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2020

Defining Treatment-Related Adverse Effects in Patients with Glioma: Distinctive Features of Pseudoprogression and Treatment-Induced Necrosis.

Sebastian F Winter, Eugene J Vaios, Alona Muzikansky, Maria Martinez-Lage, Marc R Bussière, Helen A Shih, Jay Loeffler, Philipp Karschnia, Franziska Loebel, Peter Vajkoczy and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. A Mechanistic Model of Brain Necrosis Progression Based on Vascular Heterogeneity.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Decoding Patient Heterogeneity Influencing Radiation-Induced Brain Necrosis.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sebastian F WinterMassachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8836-0235
Eugene J VaiosMassachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Alona MuzikanskyBiostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Maria Martinez-LageCS Kubik Laboratory for Neuropathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Marc R BussièreDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Helen A ShihDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jay LoefflerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Philipp KarschniaMassachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Franziska LoebelDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Peter VajkoczyDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Jorg DietrichMassachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USHarvard University · USHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DE

Funding

Identifying Early Failure to Anti-angiogenic Therapy in Recurrent GBMR01CA190901 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI RATAI, EVA-MARIA · 2015 to 2018
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA190901
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPseudoprogression (PP) and treatment-induced brain tissue necrosis (TN) are challenging cancer treatment-related effects. Both phenomena remain insufficiently defined; differentiation from recurrent disease frequently necessitates tissue biopsy. We here characterize distinctive features of PP and TN to facilitate noninvasive diagnosis and clinical management. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients with glioma and confirmed PP (defined as appearance <5 months after radiotherapy [RT] completion) or TN (>5 months after RT) were retrospectively compared using clinical, radiographic, and histopathological data. Each imaging event/lesion (region of interest [ROI]) diagnosed as PP or TN was longitudinally evaluated by serial imaging.

resultsWe identified 64 cases of mostly (80%) biopsy-confirmed PP (n = 27) and TN (n = 37), comprising 137 ROIs in total. Median time of onset for PP and TN was 1 and 11 months after RT, respectively. Clinically, PP occurred more frequently during active antineoplastic treatment, necessitated more steroid-based interventions, and was associated with glioblastoma (81 vs. 40%), fewer IDH1 mutations, and shorter median overall survival. Radiographically, TN lesions often initially manifested periventricularly (n = 22/37; 60%), were more numerous (median, 2 vs. 1 ROIs), and contained fewer malignant elements upon biopsy. By contrast, PP predominantly developed around the tumor resection cavity as a non-nodular, ring-like enhancing structure. Both PP and TN lesions almost exclusively developed in the main prior radiation field. Presence of either condition appeared to be associated with above-average overall survival.

conclusionPP and TN occur in clinically distinct patient populations and exhibit differences in spatial radiographic pattern. Increased familiarity with both conditions and their unique features will improve patient management and may avoid unnecessary surgical procedures. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Pseudoprogression (PP) and treatment-induced brain tissue necrosis (TN) are challenging treatment-related effects mimicking tumor progression in patients with brain cancer. Affected patients frequently require surgery to guide management. PP and TN remain arbitrarily defined and insufficiently characterized. Lack of clear diagnostic criteria compromises treatment and may adversely affect outcome interpretation in clinical trials. The present findings in a cohort of patients with glioma with PP/TN suggest that both phenomena exhibit unique clinical and imaging characteristics, manifest in different patient populations, and should be classified as distinct clinical conditions. Increased familiarity with PP and TN key features may guide clinicians toward timely noninvasive diagnosis, circumvent potentially unnecessary surgical procedures, and improve response assessment in neuro-oncology.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGliomaDisease ProgressionHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNecrosisRetrospective StudiesMalignant gliomaNeurotoxicityPseudoprogressionTissue necrosisTreatment-related effects

Identifiers

PMID32488924
PMCPMC7418360
OpenAlexW3030714101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.