Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of Brain Tumor Response: RANO and Its Offspring

  • Neuro-oncology (GJ Lesser, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion Statement

Treatment options for most nervous system tumors remain limited and patients are often confronted with significant morbidity and reduced life expectancy. However, significant efforts are underway to find more effective therapies for patients with primary and secondary brain tumors. As more and more clinical trials for nervous system tumors are being conducted, it is increasingly important to optimize the conduct of clinical trials in neuro-oncology. One of the key aspects in this regard is the development of objective and standardized criteria that allow for accurate response assessment in clinical trials and prevent the misclassification of responders and non-responders. Such misclassification may lead to premature discontinuation of an actually effective agent, thereby withholding a potentially active treatment from the patient. Conversely, patients may be inappropriately continued on an inactive treatment. Moreover, such misclassification may confound the data obtained in such studies and may lead to false conclusions with regards to the efficacy of the investigated drug. Therefore, reliable response assessment criteria are necessary that not only accurately capture radiographic changes but also account for treatment-related changes and incorporate the assessment of clinical status and quality of life (QoL). The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) working group is an international collaboration of neuro-oncologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, neurosurgeons, neuroradiologists, and regulatory groups (among others) commissioned to develop objective and tumor-specific response criteria for various tumor subtypes. This article reviews the currently available response criteria for high-grade glioma, low-grade glioma, and brain metastases and discusses some of the barriers to accurate assessment of treatment response in neuro-oncology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Fulop J, Liu M, Blanda R, Kromer C, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2008–2012. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17 Suppl 4:iv1–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gaspar LE, Chansky K, Albain KS, Vallieres E, Rusch V, Crowley JJ, et al. Time from treatment to subsequent diagnosis of brain metastases in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective review by the Southwest Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2955–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brufsky AM, Mayer M, Rugo HS, Kaufman PA, Tan-Chiu E, Tripathy D, et al. Central nervous system metastases in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: incidence, treatment, and survival in patients from registHER. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:4834–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lin NU, Claus E, Sohl J, Razzak AR, Arnaout A, Winer EP. Sites of distant recurrence and clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: high incidence of central nervous system metastases. Cancer. 2008;113:2638–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Chiarion-Sileni V, Guida M, Ridolfi L, Romanini A, Del Bianco P, Pigozzo J, et al. Central nervous system failure in melanoma patients: results of a randomised, multicentre phase 3 study of temozolomide- and dacarbazine-based regimens. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:1816–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. van den Bent MJ, Brandes AA, Rampling R, Kouwenhoven MC, Kros JM, Carpentier AF, et al. Randomized phase II trial of erlotinib versus temozolomide or carmustine in recurrent glioblastoma: EORTC brain tumor group study 26034. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1268–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Ballman KV, Buckner JC, Brown PD, Giannini C, Flynn PJ, LaPlant BR, et al. The relationship between six-month progression-free survival and 12-month overall survival end points for phase II trials in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Neuro Oncol. 2007;9:29–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Lamborn KR, Yung WK, Chang SM, Wen PY, Cloughesy TF, DeAngelis LM, et al. Progression-free survival: an important end point in evaluating therapy for recurrent high-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2008;10:162–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold Jr SC, Cairncross JG. Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:1277–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. van den Bent MJ, Vogelbaum MA, Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Chang SM. End point assessment in gliomas: novel treatments limit usefulness of classical Macdonald’s Criteria. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2905–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Sorensen AG, Batchelor TT, Wen PY, Zhang WT, Jain RK. Response criteria for glioma. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2008;5:634–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Henson JW, Ulmer S, Harris GJ. Brain tumor imaging in clinical trials. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29:419–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wen PY, Norden AD, Drappatz J, Quant E. Response assessment challenges in clinical trials of gliomas. Curr Oncol Rep. 2010;12:68–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, Cloughesy TF, Sorensen AG, Galanis E, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1963–72. This article provides recommendations for the response assessment in high-grade gliomas and is the first report published by the RANO working group

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cairncross JG, Pexman JH, Rathbone MP, DelMaestro RF. Postoperative contrast enhancement in patients with brain tumor. Ann Neurol. 1985;17:570–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sheline GE, Wara WM, Smith V. Therapeutic irradiation and brain injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1980;6:1215–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Watling CJ, Lee DH, Macdonald DR, Cairncross JG. Corticosteroid-induced magnetic resonance imaging changes in patients with recurrent malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12:1886–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Henegar MM, Moran CJ, Silbergeld DL. Early postoperative magnetic resonance imaging following nonneoplastic cortical resection. J Neurosurg. 1996;84:174–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ulmer S, Braga TA, Barker 2nd FG, Lev MH, Gonzalez RG, Henson JW. Clinical and radiographic features of peritumoral infarction following resection of glioblastoma. Neurology. 2006;67:1668–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Finn MA, Blumenthal DT, Salzman KL, Jensen RL. Transient postictal MRI changes in patients with brain tumors may mimic disease progression. Surg Neurol. 2007;67:246–50. discussion 50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brandsma D, Stalpers L, Taal W, Sminia P, van den Bent MJ. Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:453–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gerstner ER, McNamara MB, Norden AD, Lafrankie D, Wen PY. Effect of adding temozolomide to radiation therapy on the incidence of pseudo-progression. J Neurooncol. 2009;94:97–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Taal W, Brandsma D, de Bruin HG, Bromberg JE, Swaak-Kragten AT, Smitt PA, et al. Incidence of early pseudo-progression in a cohort of malignant glioma patients treated with chemoirradiation with temozolomide. Cancer. 2008;113:405–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Brandes AA, Franceschi E, Tosoni A, Blatt V, Pession A, Tallini G, et al. MGMT promoter methylation status can predict the incidence and outcome of pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2192–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gilbert MR, Sulman EP, Mehta MP. Bevacizumab for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2048–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chinot OL, Wick W, Mason W, Henriksson R, Saran F, Nishikawa R, et al. Bevacizumab plus radiotherapy-temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:709–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Friedman HS, Prados MD, Wen PY, Mikkelsen T, Schiff D, Abrey LE, et al. Bevacizumab alone and in combination with irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4733–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rubenstein JL, Kim J, Ozawa T, Zhang M, Westphal M, Deen DF, et al. Anti-VEGF antibody treatment of glioblastoma prolongs survival but results in increased vascular cooption. Neoplasia. 2000;2:306–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Norden AD, Young GS, Setayesh K, Muzikansky A, Klufas R, Ross GL, et al. Bevacizumab for recurrent malignant gliomas: efficacy, toxicity, and patterns of recurrence. Neurology. 2008;70:779–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Paez-Ribes M, Allen E, Hudock J, Takeda T, Okuyama H, Vinals F, et al. Antiangiogenic therapy elicits malignant progression of tumors to increased local invasion and distant metastasis. Cancer Cell. 2009;15:220–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. van den Bent MJ, Wefel JS, Schiff D, Taphoorn MJ, Jaeckle K, Junck L, et al. Response assessment in neuro-oncology (a report of the RANO group): assessment of outcome in trials of diffuse low-grade gliomas. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:583–93. This article gives recommendations for the response assessment in low-grade gliomas.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47:207–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lin NU, Lee EQ, Aoyama H, Barani IJ, Baumert BG, Brown PD, et al. Challenges relating to solid tumour brain metastases in clinical trials, part 1: patient population, response, and progression. A report from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:e396–406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lin NU, Wefel JS, Lee EQ, Schiff D, van den Bent MJ, Soffietti R, et al. Challenges relating to solid tumour brain metastases in clinical trials, part 2: neurocognitive, neurological, and quality-of-life outcomes. A report from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:e407–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lin NU, Lee EQ, Aoyama H, Barani IJ, Barboriak DP, Baumert BG, et al. Response assessment criteria for brain metastases: proposal from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:e270–8. This article provides an overview over the response criteria developed for brain metastases.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Chamberlain MC. Leptomeningeal metastasis. Curr Opin Oncol. 2010;22:627–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Jaeckle KA. Neoplastic meningitis from systemic malignancies: diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. Semin Oncol. 2006;33:312–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hitchins RN, Bell DR, Woods RL, Levi JA. A prospective randomized trial of single-agent versus combination chemotherapy in meningeal carcinomatosis. J Clin Oncol. 1987;5:1655–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Glantz MJ, Van Horn A, Fisher R, Chamberlain MC. Route of intracerebrospinal fluid chemotherapy administration and efficacy of therapy in neoplastic meningitis. Cancer. 2010;116:1947–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Grossman SA, Finkelstein DM, Ruckdeschel JC, Trump DL, Moynihan T, Ettinger DS. Randomized prospective comparison of intraventricular methotrexate and thiotepa in patients with previously untreated neoplastic meningitis. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:561–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Glantz MJ, LaFollette S, Jaeckle KA, Shapiro W, Swinnen L, Rozental JR, et al. Randomized trial of a slow-release versus a standard formulation of cytarabine for the intrathecal treatment of lymphomatous meningitis. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:3110–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Chamberlain M, Soffietti R, Raizer J, Ruda R, Brandsma D, Boogerd W, et al. Leptomeningeal metastasis: a response assessment in neuro-oncology critical review of endpoints and response criteria of published randomized clinical trials. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16:1176–85. This article gives an excellent overview of the pathology, clinical presentation of leptomeningeal metastases and points out the strength and weaknesses of the clinical trials performed to date.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Thibault I, Chang EL, Sheehan J, Ahluwalia MS, Guckenberger M, Sohn MJ, et al. Response assessment after stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastasis: a report from the SPIne response assessment in Neuro-Oncology (SPINO) group. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:e595–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kantoff PW, Higano CS, Shore ND, Berger ER, Small EJ, Penson DF, et al. Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:411–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, Weber RW, Sosman JA, Haanen JB, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:711–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV, Arance A, Grob JJ, Mortier L, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2521–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Robert C, Karaszewska B, Schachter J, Rutkowski P, Mackiewicz A, Stroiakovski D, et al. Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:30–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sundar R, Cho BC, Brahmer JR, Soo RA. Nivolumab in NSCLC: latest evidence and clinical potential. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2015;7:85–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Wolchok JD, Hoos A, O’Day S, Weber JS, Hamid O, Lebbe C, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-related response criteria. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:7412–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Okada H, Weller M, Huang R, Finocchiaro G, Gilbert MR, Wick W, et al. Immunotherapy response assessment in neuro-oncology: a report of the RANO working group. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:e534–42. This article gives recommendations for the response assessment in immunotherapy trials.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Piemonti L, Monti P, Allavena P, Sironi M, Soldini L, Leone BE, et al. Glucocorticoids affect human dendritic cell differentiation and maturation. J Immunol. 1999;162:6473–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hsu AK, Quach H, Tai T, Prince HM, Harrison SJ, Trapani JA, et al. The immunostimulatory effect of lenalidomide on NK-cell function is profoundly inhibited by concurrent dexamethasone therapy. Blood. 2011;117:1605–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Gustafson MP, Lin Y, New KC, Bulur PA, O’Neill BP, Gastineau DA, et al. Systemic immune suppression in glioblastoma: the interplay between CD14 + HLA-DRlo/neg monocytes, tumor factors, and dexamethasone. Neuro Oncol. 2010;12:631–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Norden AD, Ligon KL, Hammond SN, Muzikansky A, Reardon DA, Kaley TJ, et al. Phase II study of monthly pasireotide LAR (SOM230C) for recurrent or progressive meningioma. Neurology. 2015;84:280–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Norden AD, Raizer JJ, Abrey LE, Lamborn KR, Lassman AB, Chang SM, et al. Phase II trials of erlotinib or gefitinib in patients with recurrent meningioma. J Neurooncol. 2010;96:211–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kaley TJ, Wen P, Schiff D, Ligon K, Haidar S, Karimi S, et al. Phase II trial of sunitinib for recurrent and progressive atypical and anaplastic meningioma. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17:116–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Nayak L, Iwamoto FM, Rudnick JD, Norden AD, Lee EQ, Drappatz J, et al. Atypical and anaplastic meningiomas treated with bevacizumab. J Neurooncol. 2012;109:187–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Rogers L, Barani I, Chamberlain M, Kaley TJ, McDermott M, Raizer J, et al. Meningiomas: knowledge base, treatment outcomes, and uncertainties. A RANO review. J Neurosurg. 2015;122:4–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Kaley T, Barani I, Chamberlain M, McDermott M, Panageas K, Raizer J, et al. Historical benchmarks for medical therapy trials in surgery- and radiation-refractory meningioma: a RANO review. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16:829–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Nayak L, DeAngelis L, Wen P, Brandes A, Soffietti R, Lin N, et al. The Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) Scale: a tool to assess neurologic function for integration in the Radiologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria. Neurology. 2014;82(10 Supplement Abstr):S22.005.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Warren KE, Poussaint TY, Vezina G, Hargrave D, Packer RJ, Goldman S, et al. Challenges with defining response to antitumor agents in pediatric neuro-oncology: a report from the response assessment in pediatric neuro-oncology (RAPNO) working group. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013;60:1397–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Wen PY, Cloughesy TF, Ellingson BM, Reardon DA, Fine HA, Abrey L, et al. Report of the jumpstarting brain tumor drug development coalition and FDA clinical trials neuroimaging endpoint workshop (January 30, 2014, Bethesda MD). Neuro Oncol. 2014;16 Suppl 7:vii36–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Ellingson BM, Bendszus M, Boxerman J, Barboriak D, Erickson BJ, Smits M, et al. Consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol in clinical trials. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17:1188–98. This article makes recommendations for a standardized yet widely applicable imaging protocol for the radiographic surveillance of patients with brain tumors.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Shah GD, Kesari S, Xu R, Batchelor TT, O’Neill AM, Hochberg FH, et al. Comparison of linear and volumetric criteria in assessing tumor response in adult high-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2006;8:38–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Galanis E, Buckner JC, Maurer MJ, Sykora R, Castillo R, Ballman KV, et al. Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: measurement by RECIST, two-dimensional, computer-assisted tumor area, and computer-assisted tumor volume methods. Neuro Oncol. 2006;8:156–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Bauknecht HC, Romano VC, Rogalla P, Klingebiel R, Wolf C, Bornemann L, et al. Intra- and interobserver variability of linear and volumetric measurements of brain metastases using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:49–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Huang RY, Neagu MR, Reardon DA, Wen PY. Pitfalls in the neuroimaging of glioblastoma in the era of antiangiogenic and immuno/targeted therapy—detecting illusive disease, defining response. Front Neurol. 2015;6:33. This article provides an excellent overview of the current advances in imaging technology for brain tumors.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Eisele SC, Dietrich J. Cerebral radiation necrosis: diagnostic challenge and clinical management. Rev Neurol. 2015;61:225–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    Sylvia C. Eisele M.D., Patrick Y. Wen M.D. & Eudocia Q. Lee M.D., M.P.H.

Authors
  1. Sylvia C. Eisele M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Y. Wen M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eudocia Q. Lee M.D., M.P.H.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eudocia Q. Lee M.D., M.P.H..

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

Sylvia C. Eisele declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Patrick Y. Wen receives research support from Agios, Angiochem, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Vascular Biogenics; he is on the advisory board for AbbVie, Cavion, Celldex, Genentech/Roche, Midatech, Momenta, Novartis, Novocure, SigmaTau, and Vascular Biogenics and is part of the Speakers Bureau for Merck.

Eudocia Q. Lee is a consultant for Genentech/Roche and a contributor for UpToDate, Inc.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Neuro-oncology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eisele, S.C., Wen, P.Y. & Lee, E.Q. Assessment of Brain Tumor Response: RANO and Its Offspring. Curr. Treat. Options in Oncol. 17, 35 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-016-0413-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-016-0413-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation