Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28199863›Full record

ArticleTranslational oncology2017

Analysis of Chemopredictive Assay for Targeting Cancer Stem Cells in Glioblastoma Patients.

Candace M Howard, Jagan Valluri, Anthony Alberico, Terrence Julien, Rida Mazagri, Robert Marsh, Hoyt Alastair, Antonio Cortese, Michael Griswold, Wanmei Wang and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational 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 NCT03632135 (Standard Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Chosen by Cancer Stem Cell Chemosensitivity Testing in the Management of Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03632135 phase3completednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Standard Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Chosen by Cancer Stem Cell Chemosensitivity Testing in the Management of Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM).

TypeinterventionalSponsorCordgenics, LLCRan2018 to 2023Enrolled78ConditionsRecurrent GlioblastomaArmsChemoID assay, Chemotherapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Cancer Stem Cell Assay for the Treatment of Platinum-Resistant Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.HSOA journal of stem cells research, development & therapy · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

13 authors.

Candace M HowardDepartment of Radiology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS 39216.
Jagan ValluriDepartment of Biological Sciences, Marshall University, Huntington, WV 25755.
Anthony AlbericoDepartment of Neuroscience, Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Marshall University, Huntington, WV 25705.
Terrence JulienDepartment of Neuroscience, Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Marshall University, Huntington, WV 25705.
Rida MazagriDepartment of Neuroscience, Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Marshall University, Huntington, WV 25705.
Robert MarshDepartment of Neuroscience, Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Marshall University, Huntington, WV 25705.
Hoyt AlastairDepartment of Neuroscience, Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Marshall University, Huntington, WV 25705.
Antonio CorteseDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Salerno, Italy.
Michael GriswoldDepartment of Data Science, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS 39216.
Wanmei WangDepartment of Data Science, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS 39216.
Krista DenningDepartment of Anatomy and Pathology, Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Marshall University, Huntington, WV 25705.
Linda BrownDepartment of Anatomy and Pathology, Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Marshall University, Huntington, WV 25705.
Pier Paolo ClaudioDepartment of BioMolecular Sciences, National Center for Natural Products Research, University of Mississippi, University, MS; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center Cancer Institute, Jackson, MS 39216. Electronic address: pclaudio@olemiss.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe prognosis of glioblastoma (GBM) treated with standard-of-care maximal surgical resection and concurrent adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ)/radiotherapy remains very poor (less than 15 months). GBMs have been found to contain a small population of cancer stem cells (CSCs) that contribute to tumor propagation, maintenance, and treatment resistance. The highly invasive nature of high-grade gliomas and their inherent resistance to therapy lead to very high rates of recurrence. For these reasons, not all patients with similar diagnoses respond to the same chemotherapy, schedule, or dose. Administration of ineffective anticancer therapy is not only costly but more importantly burdens the patient with unnecessary toxicity and selects for the development of resistant cancer cell clones. We have developed a drug response assay (ChemoID) that identifies the most effective chemotherapy against CSCs and bulk of tumor cells from of a panel of potential treatments, offering great promise for individualized cancer management. Providing the treating physician with drug response information on a panel of approved drugs will aid in personalized therapy selections of the most effective chemotherapy for individual patients, thereby improving outcomes. A prospective study was conducted evaluating the use of the ChemoID drug response assay in GBM patients treated with standard of care.

methodsForty-one GBM patients (mean age 54 years, 59% male), all eligible for a surgical biopsy, were enrolled in an Institutional Review Board-approved protocol, and fresh tissue samples were collected for drug sensitivity testing. Patients were all treated with standard-of-care TMZ plus radiation with or without maximal surgery, depending on the status of the disease. Patients were prospectively monitored for tumor response, time to recurrence, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Odds ratio (OR) associations of 12-month recurrence, PFS, and OS outcomes were estimated for CSC, bulk tumor, and combined assay responses for the standard-of-care TMZ treatment; sensitivities/specificities, areas under the curve (AUCs), and risk reclassification components were examined.

resultsMedian follow-up was 8 months (range 3-49 months). For every 5% increase in in vitro CSC cell kill by TMZ, 12-month patient response (nonrecurrence of cancer) increased two-fold, OR=2.2 (P=.016). Similar but somewhat less supported associations with the bulk tumor test were seen, OR=2.75 (P=.07) for each 5% bulk tumor cell kill by TMZ. Combining CSC and bulk tumor assay results in a single model yielded a statistically supported CSC association, OR=2.36 (P=.036), but a much attenuated remaining bulk tumor association, OR=1.46 (P=.472). AUCs and [sensitivity/specificity] at optimal outpoints (>40% CSC cell kill and >55% bulk tumor cell kill) were AUC=0.989 [sensitivity=100/specificity=97], 0.972 [100/89], and 0.989 [100/97] for the CSC only, bulk tumor only, and combined models, respectively. Risk categorization of patients was improved by 11% when using the CSC test in conjunction with the bulk test (risk reclassification nonevent net reclassification improvement [NRI] and overall NRI=0.111, P=.030). Median recurrence time was 20 months for patients with a positive (>40% cell kill) CSC test versus only 3 months for those with a negative CSC test, whereas median recurrence time was 13 months versus 4 months for patients with a positive (>55% cell kill) bulk test versus negative. Similar favorable results for the CSC test were observed for PFS and OS outcomes. Panel results across 14 potential other treatments indicated that 34/41 (83%) potentially more optimal alternative therapies may have been chosen using CSC results, whereas 27/41 (66%) alternative therapies may have been chosen using bulk tumor results.

conclusionsThe ChemoID CSC drug response assay has the potential to increase the accuracy of bulk tumor assays to help guide individualized chemotherapy choices. GBM cancer recurrence may occur quickly if the CSC test has a low in vitro cell kill rate even if the bulk tumor test cell kill rate is high.

Identifiers

PMID28199863
PMCPMC5310181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.