Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28007759›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology2017

Magnetic resonance perfusion image features uncover an angiogenic subgroup of glioblastoma patients with poor survival and better response to antiangiogenic treatment.

Tiffany T Liu, Achal S Achrol, Lex A Mitchell, Scott A Rodriguez, Abdullah Feroze, Michael Iv, Christine Kim, Navjot Chaudhary, Olivier Gevaert, Josh M Stuart and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. TCGA-TCIA Impact on Radiogenomics Cancer Research: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Artificial intelligence-based MRI radiomics and radiogenomics in glioma.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tiffany T LiuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research and Biomedical Informatics Training Program, Stanford, California; School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Achal S AchrolDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research and Biomedical Informatics Training Program, Stanford, California; School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Lex A MitchellDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research and Biomedical Informatics Training Program, Stanford, California; School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Scott A RodriguezDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research and Biomedical Informatics Training Program, Stanford, California; School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Abdullah FerozeDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research and Biomedical Informatics Training Program, Stanford, California; School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Michael IvDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research and Biomedical Informatics Training Program, Stanford, California; School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Christine KimDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research and Biomedical Informatics Training Program, Stanford, California; School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Navjot ChaudharyDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research and Biomedical Informatics Training Program, Stanford, California; School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Olivier GevaertDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research and Biomedical Informatics Training Program, Stanford, California; School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Josh M StuartDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research and Biomedical Informatics Training Program, Stanford, California; School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Griffith R HarshDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research and Biomedical Informatics Training Program, Stanford, California; School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Steven D ChangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research and Biomedical Informatics Training Program, Stanford, California; School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Daniel L RubinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research and Biomedical Informatics Training Program, Stanford, California; School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
University of California, Santa Cruz · USStanford Medicine · US

Funding

Pharmaco Response Signatures and Disease MechanismU54HG006097 · NHGRI · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI MITCHISON, TIMOTHY J, SORGER, PETER KARL · 2010 to 2013
$9.7M
BIGDATA: Mid-Scale DCM: DA: ESCE: Discovering Molecular ProcessesR01CA180778 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI STUART, JOSHUA MICHAEL · 2013 to 2017
$3.5M
New Integrative Pathway Analysis Methods to Predict Biomedical OutcomesR01GM109031 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI STUART, JOSHUA MICHAEL · 2014 to 2018
$2.9M
Radiogenomics Framework for Non-Invasive Personalized MedicineR01EB020527 · NIBIB · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GEVAERT, OLIVIER · 2015 to 2018
$2.3M
UCSC-Buck Specialized Genomic Data Analysis Center for the Genomic Data Analysis NetworkU24CA210990 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI STUART, JOSHUA MICHAEL · 2016 to 2020
$2.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA180778NCI NIH HHS U24 CA210990NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG006097NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB020527NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM109031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn previous clinical trials, antiangiogenic therapies such as bevacizumab did not show efficacy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). This may be a result of the heterogeneity of GBM, which has a variety of imaging-based phenotypes and gene expression patterns. In this study, we sought to identify a phenotypic subtype of GBM patients who have distinct tumor-image features and molecular activities and who may benefit from antiangiogenic therapies.

methodsQuantitative image features characterizing subregions of tumors and the whole tumor were extracted from preoperative and pretherapy perfusion magnetic resonance (MR) images of 117 GBM patients in 2 independent cohorts. Unsupervised consensus clustering was performed to identify robust clusters of GBM in each cohort. Cox survival and gene set enrichment analyses were conducted to characterize the clinical significance and molecular pathway activities of the clusters. The differential treatment efficacy of antiangiogenic therapy between the clusters was evaluated.

resultsA subgroup of patients with elevated perfusion features was identified and was significantly associated with poor patient survival after accounting for other clinical covariates (P values <.01; hazard ratios > 3) consistently found in both cohorts. Angiogenesis and hypoxia pathways were enriched in this subgroup of patients, suggesting the potential efficacy of antiangiogenic therapy. Patients of the angiogenic subgroups pooled from both cohorts, who had chemotherapy information available, had significantly longer survival when treated with antiangiogenic therapy (log-rank P=.022).

conclusionsOur findings suggest that an angiogenic subtype of GBM patients may benefit from antiangiogenic therapy with improved overall survival.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance AngiographyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAngiogenesis InhibitorsBrain NeoplasmsCluster AnalysisCohort StudiesFemaleGenotypeGlioblastomaHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedNeovascularization, PathologicAngiogenesis Inhibitorsangiogenesisantiangiogenic therapypatient stratificationquantitative perfusion-weighted imagingradiogenomic analysis

Identifiers

PMID28007759
PMCPMC5570189
OpenAlexW2561590439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.