ArticlePituitary2018
MGMT assessment in pituitary adenomas: comparison of different immunohistochemistry fixation chemicals.
Article in Pituitary, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of methylation in pituitary neuroendocrine tumors current insights and emerging perspectives.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
- DNA Methylation in Pituitary Adenomas: A Scoping Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- High-risk pituitary adenomas and strategies for predicting response to treatment.Hormones (Athens, Greece) · 2022Review
- Temozolomide therapy for aggressive pituitary tumours - current understanding and future perspectives.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2020Review
- OFrontiers in oncology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite the established role of O6-methyl-guanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) as a marker for temozolomide response, consensus of the most reliable method to assess MGMT expression in pituitary adenomas is still missing. Currently, immunohistochemistry (IHC) assessment of formaldehyde fixed tissue samples is most widely used in a semiquantitative description. As formaldehyde fails to completely preserve nucleic acids, RCL2, an alcohol-based formaldehyde-free fixative, has been proposed as a more reliable alternative in terms of cell stability. Furthermore, as the current method of IHC is semiquantitative and observer-dependent, pyrosequencing, an objective tool to evaluate the methylation status of the MGMT promoter, has emerged as a reliable and accurate alternative. The aim of this study was to validate the current IHC method for assessment of MGMT protein expression in pituitary adenomas.
methodsThe tissue samples of 8 macroadenomas with positive IHC MGMT expression (> 50%) were investigated: first, we compared the time dependent stability of MGMT protein expression after pituitary adenoma removal between formaldehyde vs. RCL2. Then, we compared positive IHC MGMT expression with methylated promoter status using pyrosequencing.
resultsIn the first 12 h after adenoma removal, tissue samples remained MGMT positive in significantly more samples when fixated with formaldehyde than with RCL2, respectively (96 vs. 81%, p = 0.025).
conclusionOur data confirm that the current method using formaldehyde tissue fixation and IHC reveals stable and reliable results of MGMT assessment in pituitary adenomas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.