Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29350455›Full record

ArticleCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2018

A novel prognostic six-CpG signature in glioblastomas.

An-An Yin, Nan Lu, Amandine Etcheverry, Marc Aubry, Jill Barnholtz-Sloan, Lu-Hua Zhang, Jean Mosser, Wei Zhang, Xiang Zhang, Yu-He Liu and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CNS neuroscience & therapeutics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. mAging · 2019
    Article
  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

11 authors.

An-An YinDepartment of Neurosurgery, The 88th Hospital of the People's Liberation Army, Taian, Shandong Province, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1888-5551
Nan LuDepartment of Neurosurgery, The 88th Hospital of the People's Liberation Army, Taian, Shandong Province, China.
Amandine EtcheverryCNRS, UMR 6290, Institut de Génétique et Développement de Rennes (IGdR), Rennes, France.
Marc AubryUEB, UMS 3480 Biosit, Faculté de Médecine, Université Rennes1, Rennes, France.
Jill Barnholtz-SloanCase Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Lu-Hua ZhangDepartment of Neurosurgery, No. 425 Hospital of the People's Liberation Army, San Ya, Hainan Province, China.
Jean MosserDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xijing Institute of Clinical Neuroscience, Xijing Hospital, Air Force Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province, China.
Wei ZhangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xijing Institute of Clinical Neuroscience, Xijing Hospital, Air Force Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province, China.
Xiang ZhangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xijing Institute of Clinical Neuroscience, Xijing Hospital, Air Force Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province, China.
Yu-He LiuDepartment of Neurosurgery, The 88th Hospital of the People's Liberation Army, Taian, Shandong Province, China.
Ya-Long HeDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xijing Institute of Clinical Neuroscience, Xijing Hospital, Air Force Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsWe aimed to identify a clinically useful biomarker using DNA methylation-based information to optimize individual treatment of patients with glioblastoma (GBM).

methodsA six-CpG panel was identified by incorporating genome-wide DNA methylation data and clinical information of three distinct discovery sets and was combined using a risk-score model. Different validation sets of GBMs and lower-grade gliomas and different statistical methods were implemented for prognostic evaluation. An integrative analysis of multidimensional TCGA data was performed to molecularly characterize different risk tumors.

resultsThe six-CpG risk-score signature robustly predicted overall survival (OS) in all discovery and validation cohorts and in a treatment-independent manner. It also predicted progression-free survival (PFS) in available patients. The multimarker epigenetic signature was demonstrated as an independent prognosticator and had better performance than known molecular indicators such as glioma-CpG island methylator phenotype (G-CIMP) and proneural subtype. The defined risk subgroups were molecularly distinct; high-risk tumors were biologically more aggressive with concordant activation of proangiogenic signaling at multimolecular levels. Accordingly, we observed better OS benefits of bevacizumab-contained therapy to high-risk patients in independent sets, supporting its implication in guiding usage of antiangiogenic therapy. Finally, the six-CpG signature refined the risk classification based on G-CIMP and MGMT methylation status.

conclusionsThe novel six-CpG signature is a robust and independent prognostic indicator for GBMs and is of promising value to improve personalized management.

Indexed as

CpG IslandsDNA MethylationAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorBrainBrain NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGlioblastomaHumansMaleMiddle AgedBiomarkers, TumorbevacizumabDNA methylationglioblastomasprognosticationrisk-score signature

Identifiers

PMID29350455
PMCPMC6489960

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.