Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35148393›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology2022

Volumetric endpoints in diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma: comparison to cross-sectional measures and outcome correlations in the International DIPG/DMG Registry.

Margot A Lazow, Martijn T Nievelstein, Adam Lane, Pratiti Bandopadhayhay, Mariko DeWire-Schottmiller, Maryam Fouladi, John W Glod, Robert J Greiner, Lindsey M Hoffman, Trent R Hummel and 9 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

19 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.

Margot A LazowBrain Tumor Center, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4362-4270
Martijn T NievelsteinRadboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Adam LaneBrain Tumor Center, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5522-8112
Pratiti BandopadhayhayDana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Mariko DeWire-SchottmillerBrain Tumor Center, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Maryam FouladiPediatric Neuro-Oncology Program, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5693-035X
John W GlodCancer for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Robert J GreinerDivision of Oncology, Penn State Health Children's Hospital, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA.
Lindsey M HoffmanDivision of Oncology, Phoenix Children's Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Trent R HummelBrain Tumor Center, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Lindsay KilburnDivision of Oncology, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Sarah LearyCancer and Blood Disorders Center, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Jane E MinturnDivision of Oncology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Roger PackerDivision of Oncology, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.
David S ZieglerKids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7451-7916
Brooklyn ChaneyBrain Tumor Center, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Katie BlackBrain Tumor Center, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3269-7303
Peter de BlankBrain Tumor Center, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
James L LeachDepartment of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USChildren's National · USChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USNational Cancer Institute · USNationwide Children's Hospital · USPenn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center · USPhoenix Children's Hospital · USSeattle Children's Hospital · USUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

Pediatric Oncology Branch Clinical Care and EducationZIEBC011516 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI GLOD, JOHN · 2013 to 2025
$69.1M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCross-sectional tumor measures are traditional clinical trial endpoints; however volumetric measures may better assess tumor growth. We determined the correlation and compared the prognostic impact of cross-sectional and volumetric measures of progressive disease (PD) among patients with DIPG.

methodsImaging and clinical data were abstracted from the International DIPG Registry. Tumor volume and cross-sectional product (CP) were measured with mint Lesion™ software using manual contouring. Correlation between CP and volume (segmented and mathematical [ellipsoid] model) thresholds of PD were assessed by linear regression. Landmark analyses determined differences in survival (via log-rank) between patients classified as PD versus non-PD by CP and volumetric measurements at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 months postradiotherapy (RT). Hazard ratios (HR) for survival after these time points were calculated by Cox regression.

resultsA total of 312 MRIs (46 patients) were analyzed. Comparing change from the previous smallest measure, CP increase of 25% (PD) correlated with a segmented volume increase of 30% (R2 = 0.710), rather than 40% (spherical model extrapolation). CP-determined PD predicted survival at 1 month post-RT (HR = 2.77), but not other time points. Segmented volumetric-determined PD (40% threshold) predicted survival at all imaging timepoints (HRs = 2.57, 2.62, 3.35, 2.71, 16.29), and 30% volumetric PD threshold predicted survival at 1, 3, 5, and 9 month timepoints (HRs = 2.57, 2.62, 4.65, 5.54). Compared to ellipsoid volume, segmented volume demonstrated superior survival associations.

conclusionsSegmented volumetric assessments of PD correlated better with survival than CP or ellipsoid volume at most time points. Semiautomated tumor volume likely represents a more accurate, prognostically-relevant measure of disease burden in DIPG.

Indexed as

AstrocytomaBrain Stem NeoplasmsDiffuse Intrinsic Pontine GliomaGliomaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansRegistriescross-productdiffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG)progressive diseasethree-dimensional (3D)volume

Identifiers

PMID35148393
PMCPMC9435485
OpenAlexW4210847819

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.