Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22428052›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Prognostic value of three different methods of MGMT promoter methylation analysis in a prospective trial on newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

Arne Christians, Christian Hartmann, Axel Benner, Jochen Meyer, Andreas von Deimling, Michael Weller, Wolfgang Wick, Markus Weiler

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 144 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Molecular Biomarker Testing for the Diagnosis of Diffuse Gliomas.Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 2022
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Cancer genomics & proteomics
    Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Prognosis ofSouth Asian journal of cancer · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. The predictive value of partialNeuro-oncology practice · 2023
    Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Arne ChristiansClinical Cooperation Unit Neuropathology, German Cancer Research Center, DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany.
Christian Hartmann
Axel Benner
Jochen Meyer
Andreas von Deimling
Michael Weller
Wolfgang Wick
Markus Weiler
German Cancer Research Center · DEHeidelberg University · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DENational Center for Tumor Diseases · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hypermethylation in the promoter region of the MGMT gene encoding the DNA repair protein O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase is among the most important prognostic factors for patients with glioblastoma and predicts response to treatment with alkylating agents like temozolomide. Hence, the MGMT status is widely determined in most clinical trials and frequently requested in routine diagnostics of glioblastoma. Since various different techniques are available for MGMT promoter methylation analysis, a generally accepted consensus as to the most suitable diagnostic method remains an unmet need. Here, we assessed methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (MSP) as a qualitative and semi-quantitative method, pyrosequencing (PSQ) as a quantitative method, and methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MS-MLPA) as a semi-quantitative method in a series of 35 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded glioblastoma tissues derived from patients treated in a prospective clinical phase II trial that tested up-front chemoradiotherapy with dose-intensified temozolomide (UKT-05). Our goal was to determine which of these three diagnostic methods provides the most accurate prediction of progression-free survival (PFS). The MGMT promoter methylation status was assessable by each method in almost all cases (n = 33/35 for MSP; n = 35/35 for PSQ; n = 34/35 for MS-MLPA). We were able to calculate significant cut-points for the continuous methylation signals at each CpG site analysed by PSQ (range, 11.5 to 44.9%) and at one CpG site assessed by MS-MLPA (3.6%) indicating that a dichotomisation of continuous methylation data as a prerequisite for comparative survival analyses is feasible. Our results show that, unlike MS-MLPA, MSP and PSQ provide a significant improvement of predicting PFS compared with established clinical prognostic factors alone (likelihood ratio tests: p<0.001). Conclusively, taking into consideration prognostic value, cost effectiveness and ease of use, we recommend pyrosequencing for analyses of MGMT promoter methylation in high-throughput settings and MSP for clinical routine diagnostics with low sample numbers.

Indexed as

DacarbazineDisease-Free SurvivalDNA MethylationDNA Modification MethylasesDNA PrimersDNA Repair EnzymesGlioblastomaHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLikelihood FunctionsMolecular Probe TechniquesNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesPolymerase Chain ReactionPrognosisPromoter Regions, GeneticProspective StudiesDacarbazineDNA Modification MethylasesDNA PrimersDNA Repair EnzymesMGMT protein, humanTemozolomideTumor Suppressor Proteins

Identifiers

PMID22428052
PMCPMC3302822
OpenAlexW2062299448

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.