ArticleESMO open2022
MRI-based contrast clearance analysis shows high differentiation accuracy between radiation-induced reactions and progressive disease after cranial radiotherapy.
Article in ESMO open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Distinguishing true progression from treatment effects in glioblastoma: a practical, evidence-graded imaging framework for the multidisciplinary team.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Review
- Headache as a Sentinel Signal After Cranial Radiotherapy: A Symptom-Driven Approach to Pathophysiology and Management.Neurology international · 2026Review
- Contrast clearance analysis in post-operative brain metastases resection cavities: case series and literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Applications of Advanced Imaging for Radiotherapy Planning and Response Assessment in the Central Nervous System.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Review
- Delayed Contrast-enhanced MRI Distinguishes Tumor from Radiation Treatment Effect.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Article
- Multidisciplinary management strategies for recurrent brain metastasis after prior radiotherapy: An overview.Neuro-oncology · 2025Review
- Article
- Histopathological correlation of brain tumor recurrence vs. radiation effect post-radiosurgery as detected by MRI contrast clearance analysis: a validation study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
- The value of stereotactic biopsy of primary and recurrent brain metastases in the era of precision medicine.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Contrast clearance analysis in neuro-oncology: A systematic review and meta-analysis on differentiating posttreatment changes from tumor progression.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPseudoprogression (PsP) or radiation necrosis (RN) may frequently occur after cranial radiotherapy and show a similar imaging pattern compared with progressive disease (PD). We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging-based contrast clearance analysis (CCA) in this clinical setting. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients with equivocal imaging findings after cranial radiotherapy were consecutively included into this monocentric prospective study. CCA was carried out by software-based automated subtraction of imaging features in late versus early T1-weighted sequences after contrast agent application. Two experienced neuroradiologists evaluated CCA with respect to PsP/RN and PD being blinded for histological findings. The radiological assessment was compared with the histopathological results, and its accuracy was calculated statistically.
resultsA total of 33 patients were included; 16 (48.5%) were treated because of a primary brain tumor (BT), and 17 (51.1%) because of a secondary BT. In one patient, CCA was technically infeasible. The accuracy of CCA in predicting the histological result was 0.84 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.95; one-sided P = 0.051; n = 32]. Sensitivity and specificity of CCA were 0.93 (95% CI 0.66-1.00) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.52-0.94), respectively. The accuracy in patients with secondary BTs was 0.94 (95% CI 0.71-1.00) and nonsignificantly higher compared with patients with primary BT with an accuracy of 0.73 (95% CI 0.45-0.92), P = 0.16.
conclusionsIn this study, CCA was a highly accurate, easy, and helpful method for distinguishing PsP or RN from PD after cranial radiotherapy, especially in patients with secondary tumors after radiosurgical treatment.
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.