Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38187872›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology advances

Volumetric analysis: Rethinking brain metastases response assessment.

Beatriz Ocaña-Tienda, Julián Pérez-Beteta, José Antonio Romero-Rosales, Beatriz Asenjo, Ana Ortiz de Mendivil, Luis Alberto Pérez Romasanta, Jose David Albillo Labarra, Fátima Nagib, María Vidal Denis, Belén Luque and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Efficacy assessment in phase I clinical trials: endpoints and challenges.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Morphological MRI features as prognostic indicators in brain metastases.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

12 authors.

Beatriz Ocaña-TiendaMathematical Oncology Laboratory, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8931-3836
Julián Pérez-BetetaMathematical Oncology Laboratory, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0317-6215
José Antonio Romero-RosalesMathematical Oncology Laboratory, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Beatriz AsenjoDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Regional Universitario Carlos Haya, Málaga, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1299-5079
Ana Ortiz de MendivilDepartment of Radiology, Sanchinarro University Hospital, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3567-7041
Luis Alberto Pérez RomasantaRadiation Oncology Service, Salamanca University Hospital, Salamanca, Spain.
Jose David Albillo LabarraRadiology Unit, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Madrid, Spain.
Fátima NagibDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Regional Universitario Carlos Haya, Málaga, Spain.
María Vidal DenisDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Regional Universitario Carlos Haya, Málaga, Spain.
Belén LuqueMathematical Oncology Laboratory, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Estanislao AranaDepartment of Radiology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1884-7854
Víctor M Pérez-GarcíaMathematical Oncology Laboratory, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology for Brain Metastases (RANO-BM) criteria are the gold standard for assessing brain metastases (BMs) treatment response. However, they are limited by their reliance on 1D, despite the routine use of high-resolution T1-weighted MRI scans for BMs, which allows for 3D measurements. Our study aimed to investigate whether volumetric measurements could improve the response assessment in patients with BMs. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated a dataset comprising 783 BMs and analyzed the response of 185 of them from 132 patients who underwent stereotactic radiotherapy between 2007 and 2021 at 5 hospitals. We used T1-weighted MRIs to compute the volume of the lesions. For the volumetric criteria, progressive disease was defined as at least a 30% increase in volume, and partial response was characterized by a 20% volume reduction. Results: Our study showed that the proposed volumetric criteria outperformed the RANO-BM criteria in several aspects: (1) Evaluating every lesion, while RANO-BM failed to evaluate 9.2% of them. (2) Classifying response effectively in 140 lesions, compared to only 72 lesions classified by RANO-BM. (3) Identifying BM recurrences a median of 3.3 months earlier than RANO-BM criteria. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the superiority of volumetric criteria in improving the response assessment of BMs compared to the RANO-BM criteria. Our proposed criteria allow for evaluation of every lesion, regardless of its size or shape, better classification, and enable earlier identification of progressive disease. Volumetric criteria provide a standardized, reliable, and objective tool for assessing treatment response.

Indexed as

brain metastasesMRIprogressive diseasestereotactic radiosurgeryvolumetric analysis

Identifiers

PMID38187872
PMCPMC10771272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.