ArticleThe oncologist2026
Identification of new prognostic molecular markers in glioblastoma: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in The oncologist, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and aggressive primary CNS tumor in adults and carries a poor prognosis. Although molecular classification has advanced, patient outcomes remain variable. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) can reveal genomic alterations that, while not yet treatment-guiding, offer prognostic and biological insight. The study aimed to investigate the association between molecular alterations in primary GBM tumors and patient survival outcomes.
methodsThis study analyzed medical records of consecutive GBM patients treated between November 1, 2018 and December 31, 2021 at a comprehensive cancer center, for whom NGS data from the tumor was available. Survival analyses were performed according to clinical, radiological, therapeutic, and molecular data.
resultsOf 199 patients, 38 were excluded: 15 for recurrence-only data and 23 for incomplete molecular data after first progression. In the survival analysis of the cohort (n = 161) adjusted on surgical resection, MGMT promoter methylation status, number of alterations, age, tumor localization, MIB1 and performance status, EGFR substitutions were significantly associated with increased overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.43 [0.26; 0.72], P = .001), while CDKN2A/B loss and TP53 substitutions were associated with decreased OS (HR = 1.75 [1.08; 2.84], P = .023 and HR = 1.69 [1.04; 2.74], P = .034 respectively). NOTCH1 substitutions showed a trend towards improved progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.55 [0.30; 1.01], P = .054).
conclusionWe identified new prognostic markers in GBM, showing for the first time that EGFR substitutions improve OS. Validation in external cohorts and preclinical studies is needed.
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.