Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25584486›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2015

O6-Methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase status in neuroendocrine tumours: prognostic relevance and association with response to alkylating agents.

T Walter, B van Brakel, C Vercherat, V Hervieu, J Forestier, J-A Chayvialle, Y Molin, C Lombard-Bohas, M-O Joly, J-Y Scoazec

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Differential diagnosis and predictive markers of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PanNET).Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Prospective Evaluation ofCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023
    Observational
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Evaluation ofOncology research · 2022
    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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

T Walter1] Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Service d'oncologie Digestive, 69437 Lyon, France [2] INSERM, UMR 1052, Lyon Cancer Research Center, Faculté Laennec, 69372 Lyon, France [3] Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69622 Villeurbanne, France.
B van BrakelHospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Service d'oncologie Digestive, 69437 Lyon, France.
C VercheratINSERM, UMR 1052, Lyon Cancer Research Center, Faculté Laennec, 69372 Lyon, France.
V Hervieu1] INSERM, UMR 1052, Lyon Cancer Research Center, Faculté Laennec, 69372 Lyon, France [2] Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69622 Villeurbanne, France [3] Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Service Central d'Anatomie et Cytologie Pathologiques, 69437 Lyon, France.
J ForestierHospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Service d'oncologie Digestive, 69437 Lyon, France.
J-A Chayvialle1] INSERM, UMR 1052, Lyon Cancer Research Center, Faculté Laennec, 69372 Lyon, France [2] Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69622 Villeurbanne, France [3] Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hépatogastroentérologie, 69437 Lyon, France.
Y MolinHospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Service d'oncologie Digestive, 69437 Lyon, France.
C Lombard-BohasHospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Service d'oncologie Digestive, 69437 Lyon, France.
M-O Joly1] INSERM, UMR 1052, Lyon Cancer Research Center, Faculté Laennec, 69372 Lyon, France [2] Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69622 Villeurbanne, France [3] Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Service Central d'Anatomie et Cytologie Pathologiques, 69437 Lyon, France.
J-Y Scoazec1] INSERM, UMR 1052, Lyon Cancer Research Center, Faculté Laennec, 69372 Lyon, France [2] Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69622 Villeurbanne, France [3] Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Service Central d'Anatomie et Cytologie Pathologiques, 69437 Lyon, France.
Hospices Civils de Lyon · FRInserm · FRCentre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Lyon · FRHôpital Edouard Herriot · FRUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundO(6)-Methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) loss of expression has been suggested to be predictive of response to temozolomide in neuroendocrine tumours (NETs), but so far, only limited data are available. We evaluated the prognostic and predictive value of MGMT status, assessed by two molecular methods and immunohistochemistry, in a large series of NETs of different origins.

methodsA total of 107 patients, including 53 treated by alkylants (temozolomide, dacarbazine or streptozotocin), were retrospectively studied. In each case, we used methyl-specific PCR (MS-PCR) and pyrosequencing for evaluation of promoter methylation and immunohistochemistry for evaluation of protein status.

resultsMGMT promoter methylation was detected in 12 out of 99 (12%) interpretable cases by MS-PCR and in 24 out of 99 (24%) by pyrosequencing. O(6)-Methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase loss of expression was observed in 29 out of 89 (33%) interpretable cases. Status of MGMT was not correlated with overall survival (OS) from diagnosis. Progression-free survival and OS from first alkylant use (temozolomide, dacarbazine and streptozotocin) were higher in patients with MGMT protein loss (respectively, 20.2 vs 7.6 months, P<0.001 and 105 vs 34 months, P=0.006) or MGMT promoter methylation assessed by pyrosequencing (respectively, 26.4 vs 10.8 months, P=0.002 and 77 vs 43 months, P=0.026).

conclusionsOur results suggest that MGMT status is associated with response to alkylant-based chemotherapy in NETs.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingDNA MethylationFemaleGene Expression Regulation, EnzymologicGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansIleal NeoplasmsMaleNeuroendocrine TumorsO(6)-Methylguanine-DNA MethyltransferasePancreatic NeoplasmsPrognosisPromoter Regions, GeneticRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingO(6)-Methylguanine-DNA Methyltransferase

Identifiers

PMID25584486
PMCPMC4453664
OpenAlexW2033172867

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.