Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24252243›Full record

ArticleActa neuropathologica communications2013

Double-labelling immunohistochemistry for MGMT and a "cocktail" of non-tumourous elements is a reliable, quick and easy technique for inferring methylation status in glioblastomas and other primary brain tumours.

Elinor Burke, Mariana Grobler, Kay Elderfield, Frances Bond, Matthew Crocker, Rohan Taylor, Leslie R Bridges

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neuropathologica communications, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. MGMT: Immunohistochemical Detection in High-Grade Astrocytomas.Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology · 2019
    Article
  4. Article
  5. MGMT methylation assessment in glioblastoma: MS-MLPA versus human methylation 450K beadchip array and immunohistochemistry.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2016
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elinor BurkeCellular Pathology, St George's Hospital, Blackshaw Road, London SW17 0QT, UK. leslie.bridges@stgeorges.nhs.uk.
Mariana Grobler
Kay Elderfield
Frances Bond
Matthew Crocker
Rohan Taylor
Leslie R Bridges
St George's Hospital · GBSt George's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur aim was to develop a new protocol for MGMT immunohistochemistry with good agreement between observers and good correlation with molecular genetic tests of tumour methylation. We examined 40 primary brain tumours (30 glioblastomas and 10 oligodendroglial tumours) with our new technique, namely double-labelling immunohistochemistry for MGMT and a "cocktail" of non-tumour antigens (CD34, CD45 and CD68). We compared the results with single-labelling immunohistochemistry for MGMT and methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MS-MLPA, a recognised molecular genetic technique which we applied as the gold-standard for the methylation status).

resultsDouble-labelling immunohistochemistry for MGMT produced a visual separation of tumourous and non-tumourous elements on the same histological slide, making it quick and easy to determine whether tumour cell nuclei were MGMT-positive or MGMT-negative (and thereby infer the methylation status of the tumour). We found good agreement between observers (kappa 0.76) and within observer (kappa 0.84). Furthermore, double-labelling showed good specificity (80%), sensitivity (73.33%), positive predictive value (PPV, 83.33%) and negative predictive value (NPV, 68.75%) compared to MS-MLPA. Double-labelling was quicker and easier to assess than single-labelling and it outperformed quantitative computerised image analysis of MGMT single-labelling in terms of sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV.

conclusionsDouble-labelling immunohistochemistry for MGMT and a cocktail of non-tumourous elements provides a "one look" method for determining whether tumour cell nuclei are MGMT-positive or MGMT-negative. This can be used to infer the methylation status of the tumour. There is good observer agreement and good specificity, sensitivity, PPV and NPV compared to a molecular gold-standard.

Indexed as

Antigens, CDAntigens, CD34Antigens, Differentiation, MyelomonocyticBrain NeoplasmsCD68 MoleculeDNA Modification MethylasesDNA Repair EnzymesFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsGlioblastomaHumansImmunohistochemistryLeukocyte Common AntigensMethylationOligodendrogliomaPhotomicrographyAntigens, CDAntigens, CD34Antigens, Differentiation, MyelomonocyticCD68 antigen, humanCD68 MoleculeDNA Modification MethylasesDNA Repair EnzymesLeukocyte Common AntigensMGMT protein, humanPTPRC protein, humanTumor Suppressor Proteins

Identifiers

PMID24252243
PMCPMC3893552
OpenAlexW2145942375

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.