Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40852475›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2025

The role of FET-PET in patient selection and response assessment for reirradiation in recurrent glioblastoma.

Izabela Zarębska, Maciej Blok, Michał Marjański, Maciej Harat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Izabela ZarębskaDepartment of Neurooncology and Radiosurgery, Franciszek Lukaszczyk Oncology Center, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Maciej BlokDepartment of Neurooncology and Radiosurgery, Franciszek Lukaszczyk Oncology Center, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Michał MarjańskiDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Jan and Jędrzej Śniadecki University of Science and Technology in Bydgoszcz, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Maciej HaratDepartment of Neurooncology and Radiosurgery, Franciszek Lukaszczyk Oncology Center, Bydgoszcz, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiation treatment with modern techniques is frequently used in the complex interdisciplinary management of glioblastoma, both in primary and recurrent setting. However, standard imaging limits the ability to precisely distinguish treatment-related changes from tumor progression and to accurately assess the outcomes of radiotherapy. Given the challenges, there is growing need for advanced imaging modalities that can enhance diagnostic precision and guide therapeutic decision. One such modality is FET-PET, whose role in glioblastoma radiotherapy is increasingly recognized - from target definition to response assessment and differentiation between progression and post-irradiation changes. Recently, PET RANO criteria have been published, providing an optimal strategy for evaluating treatment response using amino-acid PET. Earlier, contributions from the PET/RANO group also supported the integration of PET imaging in radiotherapy planning and monitoring of glioma patients. Increasing evidence highlights the advantages of amino-acid PET over standard RANO MRI in predicting overall survival. However, its value in case of patient selection and monitoring of reirradiation is less clear. In this narrative review, we aimed to summarize the published data on FET-PET in patients after initial treatment from the perspective of radiation oncologist. We focused on the role of FET-PET in accurate diagnosis of recurrence and in treatment response after reirradiation.

Indexed as

amino acid PETglioblastomapost-treatment changesresponse assessmenttumor progression

Identifiers

PMID40852475
PMCPMC12367476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.