Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40716653›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2025

Forecasting Chemoradiation Response Midtreatment for High-Grade Gliomas Through Patient-Specific Biology-Based Modeling.

David A Hormuth, Maguy Farhat, Bikash Panthi, Holly Langshaw, Mihir D Shanker, Wasif Talpur, Sara Thrower, Jodi Goldman, Sophia Ty, Calliope Custer and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

13 authors.

David A HormuthOden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas; Department of Livestrong Cancer Institutes, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas. Electronic address: david.hormuth@utexas.edu.
Maguy FarhatDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Bikash PanthiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Holly LangshawDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Mihir D ShankerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
Wasif TalpurDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Sara ThrowerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Jodi GoldmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Sophia TyOden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Calliope CusterDepartment of Population Health, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Jeanne KowalskiDepartment of Oncology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Thomas E YankeelovOden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas; Department of Oncology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas; Department of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas; Department of Diagnostic Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas; Department of Livestrong Cancer Institutes, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas; Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Caroline ChungDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: cchung3@mdanderson.org.

Funding

Imaging-based tumor forecasting to predict brain tumor progression and response to therapyR01CA260003 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI QUARLES, CHRISTOPHER CHAD, YANKEELOV, THOMAS E · 2022 to 2025
$3.2M
INTEGRATING OMICS AND QUANTITATIVE IMAGING DATA IN CO-CLINICAL TRIALS TO PREDICT TREATMENT RESPONSE IN TRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST CANCERU24CA226110 · NCI · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI LEWIS, MICHAEL T., RUBIN, DANIEL L · 2019 to 2023
$3.2M
Clinical Development of Rhenium Nanoliposomes (RNL186) for GlioblastomaR01CA235800 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI BRENNER, ANDREW JACOB · 2019 to 2023
$3.0M
Image Driven Multi-Scale Modeling to Predict Treatment Response in Breast CancerU01CA174706 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI QUARANTA, VITO, YANKEELOV, THOMAS E · 2013 to 2018
$2.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA235800NCI NIH HHS R01 CA260003NCI NIH HHS U01 CA174706NCI NIH HHS U24 CA226110
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe entire course of radiation therapy (RT) for high-grade glioma (HGG) is currently derived from pre-RT magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Although it is possible to adapt RT during the course of treatment, it is often guided only by anatomical changes to the tumor. This study seeks to determine if a biology-based mathematical model, parameterized by patient-specific, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) data, can accurately forecast HGG response during RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty one patients with HGG planned for 6 weeks of concurrent RT and chemotherapy were imaged weekly with mpMRI during RT and at 1, 2, and 3 months post-RT. Each patient's MRI data from baseline to midtreatment were used to personalize a family of biology-based mathematical models, from which the most parsimonious was selected and used to predict response at the volume and voxel levels at the remaining mpMRI visits. The model family consists of varied descriptions of how tumor cells proliferate, diffuse, and respond to RT and chemotherapy.

resultsAt the volume level, Pearson correlation coefficients >0.86 (P < .0001) were observed between the predicted and observed total tumor cellularity and volume up to the 2 months post-RT. A high level of spatial overlap was measured between the predicted and observed tumor extent with Dice values >0.87 and >0.74 during and following RT, respectively. At the voxel level, Pearson correlation coefficients were >0.90 and >0.71 (P < .0001) during and following RT, respectively.

conclusionsBy leveraging patient-specific mpMRI data before and during adaptive RT, this biology-based computational framework yields accurate spatiotemporal forecasts of tumor response at the volume and voxel levels during and following RT.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsChemoradiotherapyGliomaPatient-Specific ModelingAdultFemaleForecastingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm GradingTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeTumor Burden

Identifiers

PMID40716653
PMCPMC12815495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.