ArticleBrain sciences2024
Evaluating the Efficacy of Perfusion MRI and Conventional MRI in Distinguishing Recurrent Cerebral Metastasis from Brain Radiation Necrosis.
Article in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nodular Meningeal Recurrence After Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy for Brain Metastasis: Diagnostic Challenges and Role of Reirradiation With Preoperative Fractionated Stereotactic Radiation Therapy.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Mechanisms, Imaging Phenotypes, and Therapeutic Advances of Neovascularization in Brain Metastases.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Advances in the prevention and treatment of radiation-induced brain necrosis: a narrative review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- Arterial spin labeling perfusion MRI differentiates between radiation necrosis and tumor in brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery.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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Differentiating recurrent cerebral metastasis (CM) from brain radiation necrosis (BRN) is pivotal for guiding appropriate treatment and prognostication. Despite advances in imaging techniques, however, accurately distinguishing these conditions non-invasively is still challenging. This single-center retrospective study reviewed 32 cases (28 patients) with confirmed cerebral metastases who underwent surgical excision of lesions initially diagnosed by MRI and/or MR perfusion scans from 1 January 2015 to 30 September 2020. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by comparing imaging findings with postoperative histopathology. Conventional MRI accurately identified recurrent CM in 75% of cases. MR perfusion scans showed significantly higher mean maximum relative cerebral blood volume (max. rCBV) in metastasis cases, indicating its potential as a discriminative biomarker. No single imaging modality could definitively distinguish CM from BRN. Survival analysis revealed gender as the only significant factor affecting overall survival, with no significant survival difference observed between patients with CM and BRN after controlling for confounding factors. This study underscores the limitations of both conventional MRI and MR perfusion scans in differentiating recurrent CM from BRN. Histopathological examination remains essential for accurate diagnosis. Further research is needed to improve the reliability of non-invasive imaging and to guide the management of patients with these post-radiation events.
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.