Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34398358›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI research2021

Visualizing cellularity and angiogenesis in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma with diffusion and perfusion MRI and FET-PET imaging.

Friederike Liesche-Starnecker, Georg Prokop, Igor Yakushev, Christine Preibisch, Claire Delbridge, Hanno S Meyer, Kaywan Aftahy, Melanie Barz, Bernhard Meyer, Claus Zimmer and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. LargerEJNMMI research · 2022
    Article
  10. 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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Friederike Liesche-Starnecker *Department of Neuropathology, Institute of Pathology, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Georg Prokop *Department of Neuropathology, Institute of Pathology, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Igor YakushevDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der isar, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Christine PreibischDepartment of Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der isar, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Claire DelbridgeDepartment of Neuropathology, Institute of Pathology, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Hanno S MeyerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der isar, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Ismaningerstr. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Kaywan AftahyDepartment of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der isar, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Ismaningerstr. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Melanie BarzDepartment of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der isar, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Ismaningerstr. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Bernhard MeyerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der isar, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Ismaningerstr. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Claus ZimmerDepartment of Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der isar, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jürgen SchlegelDepartment of Neuropathology, Institute of Pathology, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Benedikt Wiestler *Department of Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der isar, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jens Gempt *Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der isar, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Ismaningerstr. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. jens.gempt@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4123-4690
TUM Klinikum · DETechnical University of Munich · DE

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB 824
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCombining imaging modalities has become an essential tool for assessment of tumor biology in glioblastoma (GBM) patients. Aim of this study is to understand how tumor cellularity and neovascularization are reflected in O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine positron emission tomography ([18F] FET PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters, including cerebral blood volume (CBV), fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD).

methodsIn this prospective cohort, 162 targeted biopsies of 43 patients with therapy-naïve, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) wildtype GBM were obtained after defining areas of interest based on imaging parameters [18F] FET PET, CBV, FA and MD. Histopathological analysis of cellularity and neovascularization was conducted and results correlated to imaging data.

resultsANOVA analysis showed a significant increase of CBV in areas with high neovascularization. For diffusion metrics, and in particular FA, a trend for inverse association with neovascularization was found. [18F] FET PET showed a significant positive correlation to cellularity, while CBV also showed a trend towards correlation with cellularity, not reaching significant levels. In contrast, MD and FA were negatively associated with cellularity.

conclusionOur study confirms that amino acid PET and MR imaging parameters are indicative of histological tumor properties in glioblastoma and highlights the ability of multimodal imaging to assess tumor biology non-invasively.

Identifiers

PMID34398358
PMCPMC8368421
OpenAlexW3195677305

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.