ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Retrospective examination of pseudoprogression in
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-therapy imaging of adult brain tumours: patterns, pitfalls, and practical framework.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Clinical, molecular, and radiological predictors of prognosis in newly diagnosed astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4.Neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- RANO 2.0: critical updates and practical considerations for radiological assessment in neuro-oncology.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Modernizing Neuro-Oncology: The Impact of Imaging, Liquid Biopsies, and AI on Diagnosis and Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- The biological significance of tumor grade, age, enhancement, and extent of resection in IDH-mutant gliomas: How should they inform treatment decisions in the era of IDH inhibitors?Neuro-oncology · 2024Review
- Clinical characteristics and outcomes of adult IDH-mutant brainstem gliomas: Institutional case series and systematic review.Neuro-oncology advancesReview
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.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Tumor surveillance of isocitrate dehydrogenase ( Methods: We identified 587 Results: Fifty-six percent of patients developed CEnew (326/587); of these, 92/326 patients (28% of CEnew; 16% of all) developed PsP and 179/326 (55%) developed TP. All PsP patients had prior radiation, chemotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy. PsP was associated with longer overall survival (OS) versus TP patients and similar OS versus no CEnew. PsP differs from TP based on earlier time of onset (median 5.8 vs 17.4 months from treatment, Conclusion: PsP patients represented 28% of CEnew patients and 16% of all patients; PsP patients demonstrated superior outcomes to TP patients, and equivalent survival to patients without CEnew. PsP persists for <1 year, occurs after treatment, and differs from TP based on time of onset and radiographic features. Poor outcomes after CEnew are driven by TP.
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.