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 , Mme CHAMBRELANT Isabelle , 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

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33307200

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.