Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40384646›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025

Detecting pseudo versus true progression of glioblastoma via accurate quantitative DCE-MRI using point-of-care portable perfusion phantoms: a pilot study.

Martin Holland, Chetana Krishnan, Houman Sotoudeh, Louis Nabors, John Fiveash, Kristen Riley, Wei Huang, Daniel Barboriak, Harrison Kim

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

9 authors.

Martin Holland *Department of Interdisciplinary Engineering, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Chetana Krishnan *Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Houman SotoudehDepartment of Radiology, University of Texas at Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Louis NaborsDepartment of Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
John FiveashDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Kristen RileyDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Wei HuangRadiation Oncology Research Institute, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, USA.
Daniel BarboriakDepartment of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Harrison KimDDepartment of Radiology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.

Funding

Accurate DCE-MRI Measurement of Glioblastoma using Point-of-care Portable Perfusion PhantomR03CA245986 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI KIM, HARRISON · 2021 to 2022
$149k
NCI NIH HHS R03 CA245986
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Currently, no definitive method reliably differentiates pseudoprogression from true progression. Misclassification can either halt effective therapy or prolong ineffective treatment. We hypothesized that the diagnostic accuracy could be improved using quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) after error correction via point-of-care portable perfusion phantoms (P4s). This study aimed to develop a P4 for quantitative DCE-MRI of the brain and enhance accuracy in distinguishing between pseudo and true glioblastoma progression. Methods: Twelve patients with potential glioblastoma progression after adjuvant chemoradiation therapy were recruited. Each subject underwent two DCE-MRI exams within a week using a single 3T MRI scanner. Quantitative DCE-MRI parameters were retrieved based on the extended Tofts model (ETM), Tofts model (TM), and shutter speed model (SSM) before and after P4-based error correction. The consistency of the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameter measurements was evaluated based on the within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) before and after P4-based error correction. Glioblastoma progression status was determined using the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria about five months after DCE-MRI exams. Results: Among the participants, five had true progression, and seven had pseudoprogression. The wCVs of the Conclusions: Following P4-based error correction, a quantitative DCE-MRI parameter,

Indexed as

dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI)Glioblastomaperfusion phantomprognosisquantification

Identifiers

PMID40384646
PMCPMC12084687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.