English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The wide variety of treatment options that exist for glioblastoma, including surgery, ionizing radiation, anti-neoplastic chemotherapies, anti-angiogenic therapies, and active or passive immunotherapies, all may alter aspects of vascular permeability within the tumor and/or normal parenchyma. These alterations manifest as changes in the degree of contrast enhancement or T2-weighted signal hyperintensity on standard anatomic MRI scans, posing a potential challenge for accurate radiographic response assessment for identifying anti-tumor effects. The current review highlights the challenges that remain in differentiating true disease progression from changes due to radiation therapy, including pseudoprogression and radionecrosis, as well as immune or inflammatory changes that may occur as either an undesired result of cytotoxic therapy or as a desired consequence of immunotherapies.

journal of neuro-oncology

Pseudoprogression, radionecrosis, inflammation or true tumor progression? challenges associated with glioblastoma response assessment in an evolving therapeutic landscape