Pseudoprogression versus true progression in glioblastoma patients: a multiapproach literature review: Part 1 - Molecular, Morphological and Clinical features.
Fiche publication
Date publication
décembre 2020
Journal
Critical reviews in oncology/hematology
Auteurs
Membres identifiés du Cancéropôle Est :
Pr ANTONI Delphine, Pr NOEL Georges, Dr SCHOTT Roland, Dr LHERMITTE Benoît, Dr THIERY Alicia, Dr CEBULA Hélène, Dr LE FEVRE Clara
Tous les auteurs :
Le Fèvre C, Lhermitte B, Ahle G, Chambrelant I, Cebula H, Antoni D, Kelle Zr A, Schott R, Thiery A, Noël G
Lien Pubmed
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.
Mots clés
Glioblastoma, MGMT, Overall survival, Predictive factors, Progression, Pseudoprogression
Référence
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2020 Dec 8;:103188