Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41089515›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025

Mathematical modeling for glioblastoma treatment: scenario generation and validation for clinical patient counseling.

Eric J Kostelich, Yuan Xu, Carlos Calderón-Valero, Duane C Harris, Oscar Alcantar-Garibay, Gerardo Gomez-Castro, Thomas J On, Richard D Dortch, Yang Kuang, Mark C Preul

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Eric J KostelichSchool of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States.
Yuan XuThe Loyal & Edith Davis Neurosurgical Research Laboratory, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Carlos Calderón-ValeroThe Loyal & Edith Davis Neurosurgical Research Laboratory, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Duane C HarrisSchool of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States.
Oscar Alcantar-GaribayThe Loyal & Edith Davis Neurosurgical Research Laboratory, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Gerardo Gomez-CastroThe Loyal & Edith Davis Neurosurgical Research Laboratory, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Thomas J OnThe Loyal & Edith Davis Neurosurgical Research Laboratory, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Richard D DortchBarrow Neuroimaging Innovation Center, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Yang KuangSchool of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States.
Mark C PreulThe Loyal & Edith Davis Neurosurgical Research Laboratory, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Glioblastoma (GBM) is an aggressive primary brain tumor. Despite standard treatment, recurrence is common, and patient counseling remains challenging. Mathematical modeling offers a potential strategy to simulate tumor behavior and personalize care. This study evaluates whether a simple reaction-diffusion model can generate realistic scenarios of treatment outcomes for individual patients with recurrent GBM using clinical imaging data. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 132 MRI intervals from 46 patients who underwent treatment for recurrent GBM. T1 post-contrast and T2/FLAIR images were co-registered and manually segmented to identify enhancing tumor and edema. Using a systematic parameter sampling design, tumor growth between successive scans was simulated 18 times with a reaction-diffusion equation, the "ASU-Barrow" model, to generate realistic ranges of tumor response to treatment, as evaluated by clinical imaging. Results: Model-generated scenarios for changes in tumor volumes well approximated the observed ranges in the patient data. In 86% of the imaging intervals, at least one scenario yielded a simulated tumor volume that agreed to within 20% of the observed one (and to within 10% in 65% of the cases). Spatial accuracy was assessed using agreement and containment scores, indicating how well the predicted tumor matched the real one. The best simulations achieved an agreement of 0.52 and a containment score of 0.69. These results suggest that a simple model can generate a realistic range of outcomes, over intervals of two or three months, in a majority of patient cases. Conclusion: This reaction-diffusion model simulates likely ranges of GBM progression under treatment with reasonable accuracy and modest computational needs and may yield a clinically practical tool to support patient counseling. Incorporating advanced imaging, such as perfusion MRI, may further improve accuracy. With further development, our approach could provide personalized scenarios of treatment outcomes that could aid in patient counseling.

Indexed as

glioblastomamathematical modelingneurosurgerypatient counselingpersonalized medicinerecurrent glioblastomatumor growth

Identifiers

PMID41089515
PMCPMC12515658

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.