Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40174979›Full record

SynthesisAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2025

Diagnostic Value of PET Tracers in Differentiating Glioma Tumor Recurrence from Treatment-Related Changes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Chenchen Zhou, Yunpeng Kou, Wenqian Zhou, Wenjian Zhao, Zhicheng Fan, Yang Jiao, Yulong Zhai, Jinghui Liu, Shaochun Guo, Peigang Ji and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Discordance between methionine PET and histopathology in intracranial teratoma: a case report.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026
    Article
  4. 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

11 authors.

Chenchen ZhouFrom the Department of Neurosurgery (C.Z.), Xi'an Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Yunpeng KouDepartment of Neurosurgery (C.Z., Y.K., W.Zhao, Z.F., Y.J., Y.Z., J.L., S.G., P.J., L.W.), Tangdu Hospital, Air Force Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Wenqian ZhouThe Fourth Student Brigade of Basic Medical College (W.Zhou), Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Wenjian ZhaoDepartment of Neurosurgery (C.Z., Y.K., W.Zhao, Z.F., Y.J., Y.Z., J.L., S.G., P.J., L.W.), Tangdu Hospital, Air Force Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Zhicheng FanDepartment of Neurosurgery (C.Z., Y.K., W.Zhao, Z.F., Y.J., Y.Z., J.L., S.G., P.J., L.W.), Tangdu Hospital, Air Force Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Yang JiaoDepartment of Neurosurgery (C.Z., Y.K., W.Zhao, Z.F., Y.J., Y.Z., J.L., S.G., P.J., L.W.), Tangdu Hospital, Air Force Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Yulong ZhaiDepartment of Neurosurgery (C.Z., Y.K., W.Zhao, Z.F., Y.J., Y.Z., J.L., S.G., P.J., L.W.), Tangdu Hospital, Air Force Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Jinghui LiuDepartment of Neurosurgery (C.Z., Y.K., W.Zhao, Z.F., Y.J., Y.Z., J.L., S.G., P.J., L.W.), Tangdu Hospital, Air Force Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Shaochun GuoDepartment of Neurosurgery (C.Z., Y.K., W.Zhao, Z.F., Y.J., Y.Z., J.L., S.G., P.J., L.W.), Tangdu Hospital, Air Force Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Peigang JiDepartment of Neurosurgery (C.Z., Y.K., W.Zhao, Z.F., Y.J., Y.Z., J.L., S.G., P.J., L.W.), Tangdu Hospital, Air Force Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Liang WangDepartment of Neurosurgery (C.Z., Y.K., W.Zhao, Z.F., Y.J., Y.Z., J.L., S.G., P.J., L.W.), Tangdu Hospital, Air Force Military Medical University, Xi'an, China drwangliang@162.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5247-6727

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is often difficult to identify treatment-related changes (TRC) from tumor progression (TP) in patients with glioma, and the current application of PET scanning is expected to improve the diagnosis. PURPOSE: We used a systematic review and meta-analysis to reveal diagnostically more promising tracers by comparing the diagnostic accuracy of different PET tracers in identifying TRC and TP in patients with glioma. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases, and we selected studies that used PET scans to identify TP and TRC in patients with glioma. STUDY SELECTION: Twenty-eight studies were identified based on the set criteria. The studies involved a total of 10 different tracers and 1405 patients. TP occurred in 67.4% (947) of patients, while TRC occurred in 32.6% (458) of patients. DATA ANALYSIS: The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of various PET tracers were calculated and summarized. Moreover, the diagnostic value of various tracers was compared. DATA SYNTHESIS: This systematic review included 28 studies comparing 10 different PET tracers, including LIMITATIONS: Most studies consisted of small sample sizes; however, the included studies differed to some extent regarding the reference standard for the final diagnosis and the standard of care. Additionally, most selected studies were retrospective.

conclusionsAmino acid-based tracers exhibited the highest diagnostic value in identifying TRC and TP in gliomas, with

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGliomaNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPositron-Emission TomographyDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansRadiopharmaceuticalsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityRadiopharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID40174979
PMCPMC11979861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.