ArticleTranslational oncology2013
Genetic grouping of medulloblastomas by representative markers in pathologic diagnosis.
Article in Translational oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Significance of LEF1, ROR2, Cyclin D1, and DNA Methylation Profiling in the Molecular Classification and Prognosis Prediction of Pediatric Medulloblastoma.Balkan medical journal · 2026Article
- Review
- Molecular subgrouping of medulloblastoma in pediatric population using the NanoString assay and comparison with immunohistochemistry methods.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Immunohistochemical staining of LEF-1 is a useful marker for distinguishing WNT-activated medulloblastomas.Diagnostic pathology · 2022Article
- Subgroup-Specific Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Predictive Markers Influencing Pediatric Medulloblastoma Treatment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- MiR-1253 exerts tumor-suppressive effects in medulloblastoma via inhibition of CDK6 and CD276 (B7-H3).Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Medulloblastomics revisited: biological and clinical insights from thousands of patients.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2020Review
- Molecular markers and potential therapeutic targets in non-WNT/non-SHH (group 3 and group 4) medulloblastomas.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2019Review
- Medulloblastoma, WNT-activated/SHH-activated: clinical impact of molecular analysis and histogenetic evaluation.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2018Review
- SNCA, a novel biomarker for Group 4 medulloblastomas, can inhibit tumor invasion and induce apoptosis.Cancer science · 2018Article
- Clinicopathological analysis of UHRF1 expression in medulloblastoma tissues and its regulation on tumor cell proliferation.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2016Article
- Integrating Molecular Subclassification of Medulloblastomas into Routine Clinical Practice: A Simplified Approach.Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland) · 2016Article
- Mutation and expression analysis in medulloblastoma yields prognostic variants and a putative mechanism of disease for i17q tumors.Acta neuropathologica communications · 2014Article
- Molecular variants and mutations in medulloblastoma.Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2014Review
- Systematic decoding the functional role of human endogenous retrovirus-derived RNAs in medulloblastoma.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent analysis of the genetic features of medulloblastoma (MB) suggested classification into distinct subgroups according to gene expression profiles, including the Wingless signaling pathway-activated group (WNT group), the Sonic Hedgehog signaling pathway-activated group (SHH group), group 3, and group 4. To classify MB according to genetic features in practice, we analyzed 74 MBs using representative markers of each group. Based on immunohistochemistries (IHC), cytogenetic alterations, and a CTNNB1 mutation study, the patients were divided into the following three groups: cases showing nuclear β-catenin and/or CTNNB1 mutation and/or monosomy 6 were included in the WNT group (14/74, 18.9%); cases expressing GAB1 were included in the SHH group (15/74, 20.2%); cases that did not show positivity for markers of the WNT or SHH group were included in the non-WNT/SHH group (45/74, 60.6%). Immunoexpression of NPR3 seemed to lack sensitivity for classifying group 3, showing diffuse positivity in only two cases. KCNA1 was not specific to group 4 because it was expressed in all groups. Cases in the WNT group showed a slightly better survival than those in the SHH or non-WNT/SHH group, although additional cases are required for statistical significance. Isochromosome 17q (P = .002) and the large cell/anaplastic variant (P = .002) were demonstrated to be poor prognostic indicators in multivariate analysis. The representative IHC and cytogenetic data facilitated the division of MBs into the WNT and SHH groups; however, more specific markers should be added for the identification of group 3 and group 4 in practice.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.