ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
A clinical decision-support framework to differentiate radiation necrosis from tumor progression in brain metastases.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Differentiating radiation necrosis (RN) from tumor progression (TP) after stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) in brain metastases (BMs) is a clinically consequential problem, as conventional MRI frequently fails to distinguish between them. Misclassification can lead to inappropriate treatment decisions or delayed therapy. The objective of this study was to develop a clinically interpretable, data-driven model that integrates lesion growth dynamics with routinely available clinical variables to improve discrimination between RN and TP. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 175 BMs from 6 institutions. Lesion volumes were extracted from three consecutive contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI, and growth dynamics were quantified by estimating the growth exponent β. Clinical and treatment-related variables were systematically evaluated, and a multivariable predictive model was trained on a development cohort ( Results: The final model combined β, primary tumor histology, and SRT modality. In the development cohort, the model demonstrated strong discriminative performance (AUC = 0.887). External validation confirmed generalizability, achieving an overall accuracy of 0.75, with high specificity (0.85) and positive predictive value (0.92) for RN. Incorrect classifications were largely confined to an intermediate-probability zone, while predictions at low and high probability extremes were highly reliable. The model was translated into a freely accessible, web-based tool to facilitate clinical decision-making. Conclusions: By integrating lesion growth dynamics with routine clinical variables, this probability-based framework supports clinically meaningful differentiation between RN and TP. Its ability to explicitly represent diagnostic uncertainty, together with external validation, highlights its potential utility as a decision-support tool in the management of BMs.
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.