ArticleCureus2022
Utility of Gadolinium Use in the Imaging Follow-Up of Nonenhancing Primary Brain Neoplasms in Children.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) have been administered clinically since 1988. They are remarkably well tolerated by children and result in dose-dependent tissue deposition, even in patients with normal renal function. No adverse effects of gadolinium deposition in patients with normal renal function have been established. Given the uncertain effects of gadolinium deposition, we sought to analyze gadolinium use in the imaging follow-up of nonenhancing primary brain neoplasms in children. Materials and methods This retrospective, institutional review board-approved and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study evaluated pediatric patients who received GBCA in the routine evaluation of brain neoplasms. This special subset included 30 patients (<18 years old) with initially nonenhancing primary intracranial neoplasms who received treatment and follow-up at our institution. Patient data included sex, age from diagnosis to most recent imaging follow-up, number of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up exams, and histopathology from a biopsy or resection. Results The group had an expected variety of tumors, including low-grade astrocytomas, dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumors, oligodendrogliomas, and teratomas. Half of our patients had tumors of unknown histopathology that were not biopsied or resected. The median age at diagnosis was 8.9 years, the median of four follow-up MRIs per patient, and the median follow-up time of four years. Only one of the 30 patients developed an enhancing focus on follow-up MRI that remained stable and asymptomatic over two years and did not require surgical intervention. Conclusion Judicious use of GBCA in children, especially when numerous exams over many years are anticipated, is advised given the data regarding soft-tissue deposition. Preliminary results suggest that it may be feasible to omit GBCA from routine follow-ups of initially nonenhancing brain neoplasms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.