↓ Skip to main content

Amino-acid PET versus MRI guided re-irradiation in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GLIAA) – protocol of a randomized phase II trial (NOA 10/ARO 2013-1)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Amino-acid PET versus MRI guided re-irradiation in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GLIAA) – protocol of a randomized phase II trial (NOA 10/ARO 2013-1)
Published in
BMC Cancer, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2806-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oliver Oehlke, Michael Mix, Erika Graf, Tanja Schimek-Jasch, Ursula Nestle, Irina Götz, Sabine Schneider-Fuchs, Astrid Weyerbrock, Irina Mader, Brigitta G. Baumert, Susan C. Short, Philipp T. Meyer, Wolfgang A. Weber, Anca-Ligia Grosu

Abstract

The higher specificity of amino-acid positron emission tomography (AA-PET) in the diagnosis of gliomas, as well as in the differentiation between recurrence and treatment-related alterations, in comparison to contrast enhancement in T1-weighted MRI was demonstrated in many studies and is the rationale for their implementation into radiation oncology treatment planning. Several clinical trials have demonstrated the significant differences between AA-PET and standard MRI concerning the definition of the gross tumor volume (GTV). A small single-center non-randomized prospective study in patients with recurrent high grade gliomas treated with stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy (SFRT) showed a significant improvement in survival when AA-PET was integrated in target volume delineation, in comparison to patients treated based on CT/MRI alone. This protocol describes a prospective, open label, randomized, multi-center phase II trial designed to test if radiotherapy target volume delineation based on FET-PET leads to improvement in progression free survival (PFS) in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) treated with re-irradiation, compared to target volume delineation based on T1Gd-MRI. The target sample size is 200 randomized patients with a 1:1 allocation ratio to both arms. The primary endpoint (PFS) is determined by serial MRI scans, supplemented by AA-PET-scans and/or biopsy/surgery if suspicious of progression. Secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS), locally controlled survival (time to local progression or death), volumetric assessment of GTV delineated by either method, topography of progression in relation to MRI- or PET-derived target volumes, rate of long term survivors (>1 year), localization of necrosis after re-irradiation, quality of life (QoL) assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C15 PAL questionnaire, evaluation of safety of FET-application in AA-PET imaging and toxicity of re-irradiation. This is a protocol of a randomized phase II trial designed to test a new strategy of radiotherapy target volume delineation for improving the outcome of patients with recurrent GBM. Moreover, the trial will help to develop a standardized methodology for the integration of AA-PET and other imaging biomarkers in radiation treatment planning. The GLIAA trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01252459 , registration date 02.12.2010), German Clinical Trials Registry ( DRKS00000634 , registration date 10.10.2014), and European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT-No. 2012-001121-27, registration date 27.02.2012).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 16%
Student > Master 16 15%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Other 7 6%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 25 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Neuroscience 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 31 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 October 2016.
All research outputs
#18,473,108
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#5,443
of 8,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,782
of 319,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#84
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,327 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,501 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.