ArticleNeuro-oncology2021
Radiological assessment schedule for high-grade glioma patients during the surveillance period using parametric modeling.
Article in Neuro-oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Receptor tyrosine kinase targeted therapies in glioblastoma: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Recurrence Incidence and Optimal Surveillance After Complete Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Mucinous Appendix Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- RANO 2.0: critical updates and practical considerations for radiological assessment in neuro-oncology.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- The Effect of Staging Intervals on Progression-Free Survival in Registration Studies of Oncologic Drugs: A Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2025Article
- Sarcopenia is associated with chemoradiotherapy discontinuation and reduced progression-free survival in glioblastoma patients.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2024Article
- Imaging timing after surgery for glioblastoma: an evaluation of practice in Great Britain and Ireland (INTERVAL-GB)- a multi-centre, cohort study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2024Observational
- Gadolinium Reduction in Brain Tumor Imaging: A Paradigm Shift in Diagnostic Strategies.Radiology · 2024Article
- Article
- The patients' experience of neuroimaging of primary brain tumors: a cross-sectional survey study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2023Article
- Surveillance imaging frequency in adult patients with lower-grade (WHO Grade 2 and 3) gliomas.Neuro-oncology · 2022Review
- Is there an optimal MRI surveillance schedule for patients with high-grade glioma after standard-of-care-therapy?Neuro-oncology · 2021Article
- Radiological assessment schedule for 1p/19q-codeleted gliomas during the surveillance period using parametric modeling.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn optimal radiological surveillance plan is crucial for high-grade glioma (HGG) patients, which is determined arbitrarily in daily clinical practice. We propose the radiological assessment schedule using a parametric model of standardized progression-free survival (PFS) curves.
methodsA total of 277 HGG patients (178 glioblastoma [GBM] and 99 anaplastic astrocytoma [AA]) from a single institute who completed the standard treatment protocol were enrolled in this cohort study and retrospectively analyzed. The patients were stratified into each layered risk group by genetic signatures and residual mass or through recursive partitioning analysis. PFS curves were estimated using the piecewise exponential survival model. The criterion of a 10% progression rate among the remaining patients at each observation period was used to determine the optimal radiological assessment time point.
resultsThe optimal follow-up intervals for MRI evaluations of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) wild-type GBM was every 7.4 weeks until 120 weeks after the end of standard treatment, followed by a 22-week inflection period and every 27.6 weeks thereafter. For the IDH mutated GBM, scans every 13.2 weeks until 151 weeks are recommended. The optimal follow-up intervals were every 22.8 weeks for IDH wild-type AA, and 41.2 weeks for IDH mutated AA until 241 weeks. Tailored radiological assessment schedules were suggested for each layered risk group of the GBM and the AA patients.
conclusionsThe optimal schedule of radiological assessments for each layered risk group of patients with HGG could be determined from the parametric model of PFS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.