ArticleNeuroradiology2022
Reproducibility of volume analysis of dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion-weighted imaging in untreated glioblastomas.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A logistic paradigm to predict molecular glioblastoma on clinical MRI.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Reproducibility of rCBV in glioblastomas using T2*-weighted perfusion MRI: an evaluation of sampling, normalization, and experience.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite a high variability, the hotspot method is widely used to calculate the cerebral blood volume (CBV) of glioblastomas on DSC-MRI. Our aim was to investigate inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of parameters calculated with the hotspot or a volume method and that of an original parameter assessing the fraction of pixels in the tumour volume displaying rCBV > 2: %rCBV > 2.
methodsTwenty-seven consecutive patients with untreated glioblastoma (age: 63, women: 11) were retrospectively included. Three observers calculated the maximum tumour CBV value (rCBVmax) normalized with a reference ROI in the contralateral white matter (CBVWM) with (i) the hotspot method and (ii) with a volume method following tumour segmentation on 3D contrast-enhanced T1-WI. From this volume method, %rCBV > 2 was also assessed. After 8-12 weeks, one observer repeated all delineations. Intraclass (ICC) and Lin's (LCC) correlation coefficients were used to determine reproducibility.
resultsInter-observer reproducibility of rCBVmax was fair with the hotspot and good with the volume method (ICC = 0.46 vs 0.65, p > 0.05). For CBVWM, it was fair with the hotspot and excellent with the volume method (0.53 vs 0.84, p < 0.05). Reproducibility of one pairwise combination of observers was significantly better for both rCBVmax and CBVWM (LCC = 0.33 vs 0.75; 0.52 vs 0.89, p < 0.05). %rCBV > 2 showed excellent inter- and intra-observer reproducibility (ICC = 0.94 and 0.91).
conclusionCalculated in glioblastomas with a volume method, rCBVmax and CBVWM yielded good to excellent reproducibility but only fair with the hotspot method. Overall, the volume analysis offers a highly reproducible parameter, %rCBV > 2, that could be promising during the follow-up of such heterogeneous tumours.
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.