Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 914

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Report of an International Workshop to Standardize Baseline Evaluation and Response Criteria for Primary CNS Lymphoma

Abrey, Lauren E., Batchelor, Tracy T., Ferreri, Andrés J.M., Gospodarowicz, Mary, Pulczynski, Elisa J., Zucca, Emanuele, Smith, Justine R., Korfel, Agnieszka, Soussain, Carole, DeAngelis, Lisa M., Neuwelt, Edward A., O'Neill, Brian Patrick, Thiel, Eckhard, Shenkier, Tamara, Graus, Fransesc, van den Bent, Martin, Seymour, John F., Poortmans, Philip, Armitage, James O., Cavalli, Franco·2005·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Standardized guidelines for the baseline evaluation and response assessment of primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) are critical to ensure comparability among clinical trials for newly diagnosed patients. The relative rarity of this tumor precludes rapid completion of large-scale phase III trials and, therefore, our reliance on the results of well-designed phase II trials is critical. To formulate this recommendation, an international group of experts representing hematologic oncology, medical oncology, neuro-oncology, neurology, radiation oncology, neurosurgery, and ophthalmology met to review current standards of reporting and to formulate a consensus opinion regarding minimum baseline evaluation and common standards for assessing response to therapy. The response guidelines were based on the results of neuroimaging, corticosteroid use, ophthalmologic examination, and CSF cytology. A critical issue that requires additional study is the optimal method to assess the neurocognitive impact of therapy and address the quality of life of PCNSL survivors. We hope that these guidelines will improve communication among investigators and comparability among clinical trials in a way that will allow us to develop better therapies for patients.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2005.13.524

Cites

16 of 16 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 16 references

Cited by

See all 914

Metadata

Authors
Abrey, L. E., Batchelor, T. T., Ferreri, A. J. M., Gospodarowicz, M., Pulczynski, E. J., Zucca, E., Smith, J. R., Korfel, A., Soussain, C., DeAngelis, L. M., Neuwelt, E. A., O'Neill, B. P., Thiel, E., Shenkier, T., Graus, F., van den Bent, M., Seymour, J. F., Poortmans, P., Armitage, J. O., & Cavalli, F.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2005-08-01
Volume
23
Issue
22
Pages
5034-5043
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2149603266
Cited by
914
References
16
FWCI
14.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Report of an International Workshop to Standardize Baseline Evaluation and Response Criteria for Primary CNS Lymphoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2005.13.524
The paper
Abrey, L. E., Batchelor, T. T., Ferreri, A. J. M., Gospodarowicz, M., Pulczynski, E. J., Zucca, E., Smith, J. R., Korfel, A., Soussain, C., DeAngelis, L. M., Neuwelt, E. A., O'Neill, B. P., Thiel, E., Shenkier, T., Graus, F., van den Bent, M., Seymour, J. F., Poortmans, P., Armitage, J. O., & Cavalli, F. (2005). Report of an International Workshop to Standardize Baseline Evaluation and Response Criteria for Primary CNS Lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.13.524

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.