ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2025
Operative performance of RAPNO DIPG imaging criteria-a study from the International DIPG/DMG Registry.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology (RAPNO) working group for diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) recently published its recommendations. We aim to test the operative performance of the RAPNO DIPG criteria imaging component by retrospectively applying it to a patient sample from the International DIPG/DMG Registry (IDIPGR). Methods: Longitudinal MRIs for 46 patients were independently reviewed by 2 pediatric neuro-radiologists. Utilizing RAPNO DIPG imaging criteria for the pontine lesions, response was categorized as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD). The response category for each MRI was compared between 2 readers and classified as concordant if they agreed, minor discordant if one reported SD and the other reported PR or PD, and major discordant if one reported PR and the other reported PD. Results: A total of 277 paired MRIs were analyzed, and 124 paired MRIs were evaluated for concordance. The response category was concordant between readers in 84 (68%) MRI comparisons. In 31 MRI comparisons (25%) the reads were minor discordant, and major discordant in 9 (7%). No CRs were reported. Minor discordant cases were within 10% of the boundary for PR or PD in 20 (65%) of these cases. The median difference between the 2 readers' measurements was 2 mm (range 0-29 mm). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that RAPNO DIPG imaging criteria can be applied with concordance or minor discordance between readers in 93% of the cases. Discordant measurements were largely at the boundaries of response type.
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.