Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25140280›Full record

ReviewSurgical neurology international2014

Case comparison and literature review of glioblastoma: A tale of two tumors.

Gustavo Mendez, Alp Ozpinar, Jeffrey Raskin, Sakir H Gultekin, Donald A Ross

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical neurology international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gustavo MendezDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Alp OzpinarDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Jeffrey RaskinDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Sakir H GultekinDepartment of Pathology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Donald A RossDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA ; Section of Neurological Surgery, Operative Care Division, Portland Veterans Administration Hospital, Portland, OR, USA.
Neurological Surgery · USOregon Health & Science University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) includes a heterogeneous group of tumors. We describe two cases with histopathologically and molecularly similar tumors, but very different outcomes. We attempt to illustrate the need for improved prognostic markers for GBM. CASE DESCRIPTION: Two patients with similar molecular profiles were retrospectively identified. The following markers were assessed: O (6)-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) methylation, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1 and 2 status, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) amplification, phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) status, Ki-67, p53, and 1p/19q status. Each patient was assigned a Karnofsky performance score at presentation. Case 1 (62-year-old male) was a right temporal lobe glioblastoma with a molecular profile of amplified EGFR, normal PTEN, no IDH1/2 mutation, 28.7% MGMT promoter methylation, 5-20% Ki-67, 1p deletion, and 19q intact. The patient underwent resection followed by radiation therapy and 2 years of chemotherapy, and was asymptomatic and tumor free 5 years post diagnosis. Tumor eventually recurred and the patient expired 72 months after initial diagnosis. Case 2 (63-year-old male) was a right frontal white matter mass consistent with glioblastoma with a molecular profile of amplified EGFR, absent PTEN, no IDH1/2 mutation, 9.9% MGMT promoter methylation, 5-10% Ki-67, and 1p/19q status inconclusive. A radical subtotal resection was performed; however, 2 weeks later symptoms had returned. Subsequent imaging revealed a tumor larger than at diagnosis. The patient expired 3 months after initial diagnosis.

conclusionThe need for formulating more robust means to classify GBM tumor subtypes is paramount. Standard histopathologic and molecular analyses are costly and did not provide either of these patients with a realistic appraisal of their prognosis. Individualized whole genome testing similar to that being reported for medulloblastoma and other tumors may be preferable to the array of tests as currently utilized.

Indexed as

1p/19q deletionepidermal growth factor receptor amplificationglioblastomaisocitrate dehydrogenase1isocitrate dehydrogenase1 mutationO6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase methylation and expressionphosphatase and tensin homolog deletionprognosis

Identifiers

PMID25140280
PMCPMC4135538
OpenAlexW2097359808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.