| Title |
Bevacizumab for radiation necrosis following treatment of high grade glioma: a systematic review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neuro-Oncology, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11060-013-1233-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel Lubelski, Kalil G. Abdullah, Robert J. Weil, Nicholas F. Marko |
| Abstract |
This review identifies the current literature on the use of bevacizumab for cerebral radiation necrosis in patients with high-grade gliomas, summarizes the clinical course and complications following bevacizumab, and discusses the relative costs and benefits of this therapeutic option. A Medline search was conducted of all clinical studies before September 2012 investigating outcomes following use of bevacizumab therapy for radiation necrosis in patients with high-grade gliomas. Clinical and radiographic outcomes are reviewed. Seven studies reported a total of 30 patients with high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab for radiation necrosis. All patients demonstrated decreased radiographic volume of edema on T1 and T2 MRI sequences. Clinical outcomes were reported for 23 patients: 16 (70 %) had improvement in neurologic signs or symptoms, 5 (22 %) had mixed results, and 2 (9 %) remained neurologically unchanged. Complications were documented in 5 of 7 studies (18 of 29 patients, 62 %) and included deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, visual field worsening, worsening hemiplegia, pneumonia, seizure, and fatigue. Only one study evaluated quality of life measures and none evaluated cost or cost effectiveness. Data regarding the use of bevacizumab to treat radiation necrosis in patients with high-grade gliomas is limited and primarily class III evidence. While bevacizumab improves neurological symptoms and reduces radiographic volume of necrosis-associated cerebral edema, it comes at the expense of a high rate of potentially serious complications. Definitive evidence for the utility, cost-effectiveness, and overall efficacy of this management strategy is currently lacking and additional investigation is warranted. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philippines | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 85 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 23 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 45% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 29 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 December 2022.
All research outputs
#7,394,455
of 23,275,636 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#1,001
of 3,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,283
of 198,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#8
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,275,636 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,015 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
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 198,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.