Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28097324›Full record

Trial reportJAMA oncology2017

Molecular-Based Recursive Partitioning Analysis Model for Glioblastoma in the Temozolomide Era: A Correlative Analysis Based on NRG Oncology RTOG 0525.

Erica Hlavin Bell, Stephanie L Pugh, Joseph P McElroy, Mark R Gilbert, Minesh Mehta, Alexander C Klimowicz, Anthony Magliocco, Markus Bredel, Pierre Robe, Anca-L Grosu and 15 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00304031 (Phase III Trial Comparing Conventional Adjuvant Temozolomide With Dose-Intensive Temozolomide in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 63 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
5.7field-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.

NCT00304031 phase3completednot on this map

Phase III Trial Comparing Conventional Adjuvant Temozolomide With Dose-Intensive Temozolomide in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma

TypeinterventionalSponsorRadiation Therapy Oncology GroupRan2006 to 2016Enrolled1,173ConditionsBrain and Central Nervous System TumorsArmsConcurrent temozolomide, Concurrent radiation therapy, 100mg/m2 adjuvant temozolomide days 1 to 5 of 28 day cycle, 75mg/m2 adjuvant temozolomide days 1-21 of 28 day cycle
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Clinically Relevant Imaging Features forAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2018
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

25 authors at 19 institutions in 5 countries.

Erica Hlavin BellDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center-Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.
Stephanie L PughNRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Joseph P McElroyThe Ohio State University Center for Biostatistics, Columbus, Ohio.
Mark R GilbertNational Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Minesh MehtaUniversity of Maryland Medical Systems, Baltimore, Maryland (during trial)6now with Miami Cancer Institute, Coral Gables, Florida.
Alexander C KlimowiczUniversity of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Anthony MaglioccoMoffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida.
Markus BredelUniversity of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama.
Pierre RobeUtrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Anca-L GrosuUniversity of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Roger StuppUniversity Hospital Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Walter CurranEmory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Aline P BeckerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center-Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.
Andrea L SalavaggioneDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center-Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.
Jill S Barnholtz-SloanCase Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.
Kenneth AldapeMD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Deborah T BlumenthalTel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Paul D BrownMD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Jon GlassThomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Luis SouhamiMcGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
R Jeffrey LeeIntermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah.
David BrachmanArizona Oncology Services Foundation, Tucson, Arizona.
John FlickingerUPMC-Shadyside Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Minhee WonNRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Arnab ChakravartiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center-Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.
The Ohio State University · USNRG Oncology · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USArizona Oncology · USCase Western Reserve University · USEmory University · USIntermountain Medical Center · USMcGill University Health Centre · CAMoffitt Cancer Center · USNational Institutes of Health · USShadyside Hospital · USTel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center · ILThe Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute · USThomas Jefferson University Hospital · USUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CHUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Freiburg · DEUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

NRG Oncology Network Group Operations Center - GY9 BIQSFP Reports/BudgetsU10CA180868 · NCI · NRG ONCOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. · PI NORMAN WOLMARK · 2014 to 2026
$206.8M
RTOG Foreign AccrualU10CA021661 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI CURRAN, WALTER J. · 1985 to 2013
$150.3M
Statistics CoreU10CA180822 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Mei-Yin C Polley · 2014 to 2026
$146.4M
NRG Oncology NCORP Research Base-BIQSFPUG1CA189867 · NCI · NRG ONCOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. · PI Deborah Watkins Bruner, Lisa A. Kachnic · 2014 to 2026
$140.5M
Translational Therapeutics Research Program (TT)P30CA016058 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Tasleem J Padamsee · 1985 to 2026
$132.3M
NRG Oncology Biospecimen BankU24CA196067 · NCI · NRG ONCOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. · PI Tanner J. Freeman, Nilsa Del Carmen Ramirez Milan · 2015 to 2026
$42.6M
RTOG Foreign AccrualsU10CA037422 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI BRUNER, DEBORAH WATKINS · 1985 to 2013
$30.4M
Brain Tumor Clinical and Clinical Research Program (Clinical Support Services)ZIDBC011642 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI OZER, BYRAM · 2015 to 2025
$23.4M
OSU as Network Lead Academic Participating Site for the NCI NCTNU10CA180850 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI BLUM, KRISTIE A, CHAKRAVARTI, ARNAB · 2014 to 2018
$6.8M
Signal Transduction Pathways in GlioblastomaR01CA108633 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI CHAKRAVARTI, ARNAB · 2005 to 2009
$2.3M
TOWARDS A REFINED MOLECULAR RECURSIVE PARTITIONING ANALYSIS MODEL FOR GLIOBLASTOMRC2CA148190 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI ALDAPE, KENNETH D, CHAKRAVARTI, ARNAB · 2009 to 2010
$2.1M
Therapeutic Exploitation of Mutant BRAF for AstrocytomaR01CA169368 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI HOUGHTON, PETER J · 2013 to 2017
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016058NCI NIH HHS R01 CA108633NCI NIH HHS R01 CA169368NCI NIH HHS RC2 CA148190NCI NIH HHS U10 CA021661NCI NIH HHS U10 CA037422NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180822NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180850NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180868NCI NIH HHS U24 CA196067NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189867
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceThere is a need for a more refined, molecularly based classification model for glioblastoma (GBM) in the temozolomide era.

objectiveTo refine the existing clinically based recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) model by incorporating molecular variables. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsNRG Oncology RTOG 0525 specimens (n = 452) were analyzed for protein biomarkers representing key pathways in GBM by a quantitative molecular microscopy-based approach with semiquantitative immunohistochemical validation. Prognostic significance of each protein was examined by single-marker and multimarker Cox regression analyses. To reclassify the prognostic risk groups, significant protein biomarkers on single-marker analysis were incorporated into an RPA model consisting of the same clinical variables (age, Karnofsky Performance Status, extent of resection, and neurologic function) as the existing RTOG RPA. The new RPA model (NRG-GBM-RPA) was confirmed using traditional immunohistochemistry in an independent data set (n = 176). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Overall survival (OS).

resultsIn 452 specimens, MGMT (hazard ratio [HR], 1.81; 95% CI, 1.37-2.39; P < .001), survivin (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.04-1.76; P = .02), c-Met (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.06-2.23; P = .02), pmTOR (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.97; P = .03), and Ki-67 (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.78; P = .007) protein levels were found to be significant on single-marker multivariate analysis of OS. To refine the existing RPA, significant protein biomarkers together with clinical variables (age, Karnofsky Performance Status, extent of resection, and neurological function) were incorporated into a new model. Of 166 patients used for the new NRG-GBM-RPA model, 97 (58.4%) were male (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [12.0] years). Higher MGMT protein level was significantly associated with decreased MGMT promoter methylation and vice versa (1425.1 for methylated vs 1828.0 for unmethylated; P < .001). Furthermore, MGMT protein expression (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.38-2.43; P < .001) had greater prognostic value for OS compared with MGMT promoter methylation (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28-2.44; P < .001). The refined NRG-GBM-RPA consisting of MGMT protein, c-Met protein, and age revealed greater separation of OS prognostic classes compared with the existing clinically based RPA model and MGMT promoter methylation in NRG Oncology RTOG 0525. The prognostic significance of the NRG-GBM-RPA was subsequently confirmed in an independent data set (n = 176). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This new NRG-GBM-RPA model improves outcome stratification over both the current RTOG RPA model and MGMT promoter methylation, respectively, for patients with GBM treated with radiation and temozolomide and was biologically validated in an independent data set. The revised RPA has the potential to contribute to improving the accurate assessment of prognostic groups in patients with GBM treated with radiation and temozolomide and to influence clinical decision making.

trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00304031.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingBiomarkers, TumorBrain NeoplasmsCombined Modality TherapyDacarbazineDNA Modification MethylasesDNA Repair EnzymesEpidemiologic MethodsFemaleGlioblastomaHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm ProteinsPrognosisReceptor Protein-Tyrosine KinasesAntineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingBiomarkers, TumorDacarbazineDNA Modification MethylasesDNA Repair EnzymesMGMT protein, humanNeoplasm ProteinsReceptor Protein-Tyrosine KinasesRON proteinTemozolomideTumor Suppressor Proteins

Identifiers

PMID28097324
PMCPMC5464982
OpenAlexW2574800639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.