Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 781

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Immunotherapy response assessment in neuro-oncology: a report of the RANO working group

Open access
Okada, Hideho, Weller, Michael, Huang, Raymond, Finocchiaro, Gaetano, Gilbert, Mark R, Wick, Wolfgang, Ellingson, Benjamin M, Hashimoto, Naoya, Pollack, Ian F, Brandes, Alba A, Franceschi, Enrico, Herold-Mende, Christel, Nayak, Lakshmi, Panigrahy, Ashok, Pope, Whitney B, Prins, Robert, Sampson, John H, Wen, Patrick Y, Reardon, David A·2015·The Lancet Oncology
DOI 10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00088-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Immunotherapy represents a promising area of therapy among neuro-oncology patients. However, early phase studies reveal unique challenges associated with assessment of radiological changes reflecting delayed responses or therapy-induced inflammation. Clinical benefit, including long-term survival and tumor regression, can still occur following initial apparent progression or appearance of new lesions. Refinement of response assessment criteria for neuro-oncology patients undergoing immunotherapy is therefore warranted. A multinational and multidisciplinary panel of neuro-oncology immunotherapy experts describes immunotherapy response assessment for neuro-oncology (iRANO) criteria that are based on guidance for determination of tumor progression outlined by the immune-related response criteria (irRC) and the response assessment in neuro-oncology (RANO) working group. Among patients who demonstrate imaging findings meeting RANO criteria for progressive disease (PD) within six months of initiating immunotherapy including the development of new lesions, confirmation of radiographic progression on follow-up imaging is recommended provided that the patient is not significantly worse clinically. The proposed criteria also include guidelines for use of corticosteroids. The role of advanced imaging techniques and measurement of clinical benefit endpoints including neurologic and immunologic functions are reviewed. The iRANO guidelines put forth herein will evolve successively to improve their utility as further experience from immunotherapy trials in neuro-oncology accumulate.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00088-1

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Cited by

See all 781

Metadata

Authors
Okada, H., Weller, M., Huang, R., Finocchiaro, G., Gilbert, M. R., Wick, W., Ellingson, B. M., Hashimoto, N., Pollack, I. F., Brandes, A. A., Franceschi, E., Herold-Mende, C., Nayak, L., Panigrahy, A., Pope, W. B., Prins, R., Sampson, J. H., Wen, P. Y., & Reardon, D. A.
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-11
Volume
16
Issue
15
Pages
e534-e542
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00088-1
OpenAlex
W2111137187
Cited by
781
References
12
FWCI
22.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Immunotherapy response assessment in neuro-oncology: a report of the RANO working group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00088-1
The paper
Okada, H., Weller, M., Huang, R., Finocchiaro, G., Gilbert, M. R., Wick, W., Ellingson, B. M., Hashimoto, N., Pollack, I. F., Brandes, A. A., Franceschi, E., Herold-Mende, C., Nayak, L., Panigrahy, A., Pope, W. B., Prins, R., Sampson, J. H., Wen, P. Y., & Reardon, D. A. (2015). Immunotherapy response assessment in neuro-oncology: a report of the RANO working group. The Lancet Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00088-1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.