ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2026
Comparative dosing of bevacizumab for radiation necrosis: impact of tumor type on edema response.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2026. 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBevacizumab is an effective treatment for radiation necrosis; however, dose -dependent radiographic and edema response data are lacking.
methodsMulticenter, retrospective cohort study of adult patients with primary central nervous system (CNS) tumors or brain metastases who received bevacizumab for radiation necrosis between June 2021 and July 2024. Patients were grouped by bevacizumab dose (7.5 mg/kg vs. 10 mg/kg administered every three weeks). Primary outcome was edema response, assessed by a blinded neuro-oncologist. Secondary outcomes included contrast enhancing disease response, clinical response, adverse events, treatment discontinuation, and re-dosing for recurrent radiation necrosis. Analyses were performed with and without adjustment for tumor type.
results104 patients were included (7.5 mg/kg, n = 53; 10 mg/kg, n = 51). Tumor type differed significantly between cohorts (p < 0.001), with more primary CNS tumors in the 10 mg/kg group. Edema response differed between dosing groups in unadjusted analyses (p = 0.032), favoring the 7.5 mg/kg cohort; however, this association was attenuated after adjustment for tumor type. Contrast enhancing disease response did not differ between groups in either unadjusted or adjusted analyses (p = 0.43). Clinical response was higher in the 7.5 mg/kg group (65.2% vs. 37.8%, p = 0.013). Rates of adverse events, treatment discontinuation, and re-dosing were similar.
conclusionsTaken together, both 7.5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg dosing strategies achieved similar radiographic outcomes. Prospective, tumor-stratified studies incorporating edema-focused and patient-centered endpoints are needed to better define optimal dosing strategies in this heterogeneous population. These findings support an individualized approach to bevacizumab dosing in radiation necrosis and highlight the need for prospective, tumor-stratified studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42859298What 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.