Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33615224›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology advances

Extent of radiological response does not reflect survival in primary central nervous system lymphoma.

Matthijs van der Meulen, Alida A Postma, Marion Smits, Katerina Bakunina, Monique C Minnema, Tatjana Seute, Gavin Cull, Roelien H Enting, Marjolein van der Poel, Wendy B C Stevens and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Assessing the intracranial metabolic score as a novel prognostic tool in primary CNS lymphoma with end of induction-chemotherapyCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Circulating Tumor DNA Profiling for Detection, Risk Stratification, and Classification of Brain Lymphomas.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  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

16 authors.

Matthijs van der MeulenDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Brain Tumor Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Alida A PostmaDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, School for Mental Health and Sciences, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Marion SmitsDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Brain Tumor Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5563-2871
Katerina BakuninaDepartment of Hematology, HOVON Data Center, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Monique C MinnemaDepartment of Hematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Tatjana SeuteDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gavin CullHaematology Department, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Nedlands, Australia.
Roelien H EntingDepartment of Neurology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Marjolein van der PoelDepartment of Hematology, University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Wendy B C StevensDepartment of Hematology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Dieta BrandsmaDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7998-9904
Aart BeekerDepartment of Hematology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Jeanette K DoorduijnDepartment of Hematology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Samar IssaDepartment of Haematology, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
Martin J van den BentDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Brain Tumor Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5710-5127
Jacoline E C BrombergDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Brain Tumor Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), small enhancing lesions can persist after treatment. It is unknown whether a difference in response category (complete response [CR], complete response unconfirmed [CRu], or partial response [PR]) reflects survival. We aimed to determine the value of a central radiology review on response assessment and whether the extent of response influenced progression-free and/or overall survival.

methodsAll patients in the HOVON 105/ALLG NHL 24 study with at least a baseline MRI and one MRI made for response evaluation available for central review were included. Tumor measurements were done by 2 independent central reviewers, disagreements were adjudicated by a third reviewer. Crude agreement and interobserver agreement (Cohen's kappa) were calculated. Differences in progression-free and overall survival between different categories of response at the end-of-protocol-treatment were assessed by the log-rank test in a landmark survival-analysis.

resultsAgreement between the central reviewers was 61.7% and between local and central response assessment was 63.0%. Cohen's kappa's, which corrects for expected agreement, were 0.44 and 0.46 (moderate), respectively. Progression agreement or not was 93.3% (kappa 0.87) between local and central response assessment. There were no significant differences in progression-free and overall survival between patients with CR, CRu, or PR at the end-of-protocol-treatment, according to both local and central response assessment.

conclusionsReliability of response assessment (CR/CRu/PR) is moderate even by central radiology review and these response categories do not reliably predict survival. Therefore, primary outcome in PCNSL studies should be survival rather than CR or CR/CRu-rate.

Indexed as

central radiology reviewcomplete responseMRIresponse evaluationsurvival

Identifiers

PMID33615224
PMCPMC7883767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.