ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2022
Interest of routine MR spectroscopic techniques for differential diagnosis between radionecrosis and progression of brain tumor lesions.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) for differentiating tumour recurrence from radiation necrosis in treated intra-axial brain tumours.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Case report: intracranial lesions in a patient with anxiety and depression: tumor recurrence or radiation encephalopathy?Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The main objective of the study is to assess the feasibility and reproducibility of routine MRS to assist in the differential diagnosis between post-radiation necrosis and tumor progression. The secondary objective is to evaluate the accuracy of the method. Method: An additional sequence of MRS was added to the standard protocol routinely used for patient follow-up. To assess discomfort a control group was formed. The time required to perform MRS and analysis of results, and data about artefacts and technical limitations were collected. MRS results analyzed independently by two neuroradiologists were compared. The diagnostic accuracy of MRS was calculated using a composite reference standard. Results: The experimental group included 38 patients, the control group 41. The discomfort felt during the examination, is not significantly different between the groups. The average quality of SRM is rated as low. The frequency of cerebral radionecrosis is 13 % based on the reference standard used, 54 % and 46 % based on MRS results for the two observers. The additional time is 19,5 min. There is strong inter-observer agreement. The sensitivity and specificity of MRS are respectively for the diagnosis of radionecrosis of 60 % and 45 % (PPV = 16 %NPV = 87 %), for the diagnosis of tumor tissue of 25 % and 94 % (PPV = 80 %NPV = 57%). Conclusion: MRS is probably not applicable in routine clinical practice; however, in view of our results and the literature, in selected cases, it could be a support in the diagnosis of radionecrosis or brain tumor progression. Radionecrosis is probably underestimated.
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.