Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 159

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pitfalls in the Neuroimaging of Glioblastoma in the Era of Antiangiogenic and Immuno/Targeted Therapy – Detecting Illusive Disease, Defining Response

Open access
Huang, Raymond Y., Neagu, Martha R., Reardon, David A., Wen, Patrick Y.·2015·Frontiers in Neurology

Abstract

Glioblastoma, the most common malignant primary brain tumor in adults is a devastating diagnosis with an average survival of 14-16 months using the current standard of care treatment. The determination of treatment response and clinical decision making is based on the accuracy of radiographic assessment. Notwithstanding, challenges exist in the neuroimaging evaluation of patients undergoing treatment for malignant glioma. Differentiating treatment response from tumor progression is problematic and currently combines long-term follow-up using standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with clinical status and corticosteroid-dependency assessments. In the clinical trial setting, treatment with gene therapy, vaccines, immunotherapy, and targeted biologicals similarly produces MRI changes mimicking disease progression. A neuroimaging method to clearly distinguish between pseudoprogression and tumor progression has unfortunately not been found to date. With the incorporation of antiangiogenic therapies, a further pitfall in imaging interpretation is pseudoresponse. The Macdonald criteria that correlate tumor burden with contrast-enhanced imaging proved insufficient and misleading in the context of rapid blood-brain barrier normalization following antiangiogenic treatment that is not accompanied by expected survival benefit. Even improved criteria, such as the RANO criteria, which incorporate non-enhancing disease, clinical status, and need for corticosteroid use, fall short of definitively distinguishing tumor progression, pseudoresponse, and pseudoprogression. This review focuses on advanced imaging techniques including perfusion MRI, diffusion MRI, MR spectroscopy, and new positron emission tomography imaging tracers. The relevant image analysis algorithms and interpretation methods of these promising techniques are discussed in the context of determining response and progression during treatment of glioblastoma both in the standard of care and in clinical trial context.

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 · 10.3389/fneur.2015.00033

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 159

Metadata

Authors
Huang, R. Y., Neagu, M. R., Reardon, D. A., & Wen, P. Y.
Venue
Frontiers in Neurology
Published
2015-02-23
Volume
6
Pages
33-33
ISSN
1664-2295 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2079015646
Cited by
159
References
6
FWCI
11.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Pitfalls in the Neuroimaging of Glioblastoma in the Era of Antiangiogenic and Immuno/Targeted Therapy – Detecting Illusive Disease, Defining Response. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fneur.2015.00033
The paper
Huang, R. Y., Neagu, M. R., Reardon, D. A., & Wen, P. Y. (2015). Pitfalls in the Neuroimaging of Glioblastoma in the Era of Antiangiogenic and Immuno/Targeted Therapy – Detecting Illusive Disease, Defining Response. Frontiers in Neurology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2015.00033

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.