Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31215469›Full record

ArticleActa neuropathologica communications2019

Distribution differences in prognostic copy number alteration profiles in IDH-wild-type glioblastoma cause survival discrepancies across cohorts.

Toru Umehara, Hideyuki Arita, Ema Yoshioka, Tomoko Shofuda, Daisuke Kanematsu, Manabu Kinoshita, Yoshinori Kodama, Masayuki Mano, Naoki Kagawa, Yasunori Fujimoto and 11 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neuropathologica communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Toru UmeharaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Hideyuki AritaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan. h-arita@nsurg.med.osaka-u.ac.jp.
Ema YoshiokaKansai Molecular Diagnosis Network for CNS Tumors, Osaka-City, Osaka, Japan.
Tomoko ShofudaKansai Molecular Diagnosis Network for CNS Tumors, Osaka-City, Osaka, Japan.
Daisuke KanematsuKansai Molecular Diagnosis Network for CNS Tumors, Osaka-City, Osaka, Japan.
Manabu KinoshitaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Yoshinori KodamaKansai Molecular Diagnosis Network for CNS Tumors, Osaka-City, Osaka, Japan.
Masayuki ManoKansai Molecular Diagnosis Network for CNS Tumors, Osaka-City, Osaka, Japan.
Naoki KagawaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Yasunori FujimotoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Yoshiko OkitaKansai Molecular Diagnosis Network for CNS Tumors, Osaka-City, Osaka, Japan.
Masahiro NonakaKansai Molecular Diagnosis Network for CNS Tumors, Osaka-City, Osaka, Japan.
Kosuke NakajoKansai Molecular Diagnosis Network for CNS Tumors, Osaka-City, Osaka, Japan.
Takehiro UdaKansai Molecular Diagnosis Network for CNS Tumors, Osaka-City, Osaka, Japan.
Naohiro TsuyuguchiKansai Molecular Diagnosis Network for CNS Tumors, Osaka-City, Osaka, Japan.
Junya FukaiKansai Molecular Diagnosis Network for CNS Tumors, Osaka-City, Osaka, Japan.
Koji FujitaKansai Molecular Diagnosis Network for CNS Tumors, Osaka-City, Osaka, Japan.
Daisuke SakamotoKansai Molecular Diagnosis Network for CNS Tumors, Osaka-City, Osaka, Japan.
Kanji MoriKansai Molecular Diagnosis Network for CNS Tumors, Osaka-City, Osaka, Japan.
Haruhiko KishimaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Yonehiro KanemuraKansai Molecular Diagnosis Network for CNS Tumors, Osaka-City, Osaka, Japan.
Osaka National Hospital · JPOsaka University · JPHyogo Medical University · JPOsaka City University · JPWakayama Medical University · JPKindai University · JPKyoto Prefectural University of Medicine · JP

Funding

JSPS KAKENHI 16K20006JSPS KAKENHI 17K16646
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The diagnosis and prognostication of glioblastoma (GBM) remain to be solely dependent on histopathological findings and few molecular markers, despite the clinical heterogeneity in this entity. To address this issue, we investigated the prognostic impact of copy number alterations (CNAs) using two population-based IDH-wild-type GBM cohorts: an original Japanese cohort and a dataset from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). The molecular disproportions between these cohorts were dissected in light of cohort differences in GBM. The Japanese cohort was collected from cases registered in Kansai Molecular Diagnosis Network for CNS tumors (KNBTG). The somatic landscape around CNAs was analyzed for 212 KNBTG cases and 359 TCGA cases. Next, the clinical impacts of CNA profiles were investigated for 140 KNBTG cases and 152 TCGA cases treated by standard adjuvant therapy using temozolomide-based chemoradiation. The comparative profiling indicated unequal distribution of specific CNAs such as EGFR, CDKN2A, and PTEN among the two cohorts. Especially, the triple overlap CNAs in these loci (triple CNA) were much higher in frequency in TCGA (70.5%) than KNBTG (24.3%), and its prognostic impact was independently validated in both cohorts. The KNBTG cohort significantly showed better prognosis than the TCGA cohort (median overall survival 19.3 vs 15.6 months). This survival difference between the two cohorts completely resolved after subclassifying all cases according to the triple CNA status. The prognostic significance of triple CNA was identified in IDH-wild-type GBM. Distribution difference in prognostic CNA profiles potentially could cause survival differences across cohorts in clinical studies.

Indexed as

DNA Copy Number VariationsAsian PeopleBrain NeoplasmsCohort StudiesGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticGlioblastomaHumansIsocitrate DehydrogenaseKaplan-Meier EstimatePrognosisIDH1 protein, humanIDH2 protein, humanIsocitrate DehydrogenaseCDKN2ACopy number alterationEGFRGlioblastomaPTEN

Identifiers

PMID31215469
PMCPMC6580599
OpenAlexW2950931626

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.