ReviewJapanese journal of radiology2025
RANO 2.0: critical updates and practical considerations for radiological assessment in neuro-oncology.
Review in Japanese journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Imaging diagnosis of cystic intraparenchymal brain neoplasms.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Prognostic impact of circulating vitamin D and genetic variants in the vitamin D pathway in glioblastoma.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Appropriate response assessment criteria are crucial for accurate evaluation of clinical trial outcomes, and numerous criteria have been proposed to address this need. With the introduction of Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria version 2.0 (RANO 2.0) in 2023, response assessment in gliomas has evolved significantly, requiring both clinicians and radiologists to develop a comprehensive understanding of its modifications and implementation. This review first provides an overview of standard management and imaging schedule in glioma treatment. We then review the basic framework of RANO 2.0, inherited from previous response criteria, with particular emphasis on major modifications to this framework: the implementation of the Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol and the adoption of post-radiation scan as the baseline scan. Additionally, we analyze critical changes in response evaluation and interpretation, specifically focusing on the role of preliminary progressive disease assessment with confirmation scans, and the elimination of T2/FLAIR lesion measurements from enhancing tumor assessment. Through illustrative clinical cases, we demonstrate the practical application of these modifications and discuss the implementation of three distinct imaging-based categories: enhancing tumor, non-enhancing tumor, and tumors with both enhancing and non-enhancing components (in short, mixed tumor). This comprehensive narrative review provides clinicians with practical guidance for implementing RANO 2.0 in their clinical practice.
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.