ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Volumetric MRI-based response assessment and prognostic value in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: RANO 2.0 versus mRANO versus RANO.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This retrospective study used volumetric MRI assessment to compare 3 response assessment criteria, namely, RANO (response assessment in neuro-oncology), mRANO (modified response assessment in neuro-oncology), and RANO 2.0, in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GB) treated with standard-of-care therapy. We evaluated whether progression-free survival (PFS), defined by each criterion, serves as a prognostic marker for overall survival (OS), and evaluated the impact of progression on patient outcome using landmark analyses. Methods: A total of 137 GB patients were included. Tumor volumes were assessed using semiautomatic 3D segmentation of contrast-enhancing and T2/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery lesions on serial MRI. The PFS was determined using RANO, mRANO, and RANO 2.0 criteria. Correlation between PFS and OS was evaluated using Spearman rank test. Differences in PFS and postprogression survival were tested with the Kruskal-Wallis test and corrected for multiple testing. Landmark analyses at 8 and 12 months were conducted to assess the prognostic effect of progression, with hazard ratios (HRs) derived from Cox models. Results: Median PFS differed significantly across criteria: 7.9 months (RANO), 11.3 months (mRANO), and 9.7 months (RANO 2.0). The correlation of PFS with OS was best with mRANO (ρ = 0.70), followed by RANO 2.0 (ρ = 0.66) and RANO (ρ = 0.50). The highest HR for death in patients with progressive disease was seen with RANO 2.0 (HR = 3.6), followed by mRANO (HR = 3.3), and RANO (HR = 3.3) (8-month landmark). Conclusion: mRANO and RANO 2.0 provided strong prognostic value in newly diagnosed GB patients. mRANO and RANO 2.0 showed strong correlation between PFS and OS, while RANO 2.0 demonstrated the strongest stratification of survival risk based on progression status at landmarks.
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.