Pseudoprogression versus true progression in glioblastoma patients: A multiapproach literature review: Part 1 - Molecular, morphological and clinical features.
Glioblastoma
MGMT
Overall survival
Predictive factors
Progression
Pseudoprogression
Journal
Critical reviews in oncology/hematology
ISSN: 1879-0461
Titre abrégé: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8916049
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
15
06
2020
revised:
12
11
2020
accepted:
23
11
2020
pubmed:
12
12
2020
medline:
23
1
2021
entrez:
11
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
With new therapeutic protocols, more patients treated for glioblastoma have experienced a suspicious radiologic image of progression (pseudoprogression) during follow-up. Pseudoprogression should be differentiated from true progression because the disease management is completely different. In the case of pseudoprogression, the follow-up continues, and the patient is considered stable. In the case of true progression, a treatment adjustment is necessary. Presently, a pseudoprogression diagnosis certainly needs to be pathologically confirmed. Some important efforts in the radiological, histopathological, and genomic fields have been made to differentiate pseudoprogression from true progression, and the assessment of response criteria exists but remains limited. The aim of this paper is to highlight clinical and pathological markers to differentiate pseudoprogression from true progression through a literature review.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33307200
pii: S1040-8428(20)30324-3
doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2020.103188
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
103188Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.