Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30189035›Full record

ReviewNeuro-oncology2019

MGMT promoter methylation status testing to guide therapy for glioblastoma: refining the approach based on emerging evidence and current challenges.

Alireza Mansouri, Laureen D Hachem, Sheila Mansouri, Farshad Nassiri, Normand J Laperriere, Daniel Xia, Neal I Lindeman, Patrick Y Wen, Arnab Chakravarti, Minesh P Mehta and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuro-oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 216 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
216citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

216 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. NAR cancer · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Independent associations of MGMT promoter methylation and TERT promoter mutation with overall survival in glioblastoma: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

156 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

14 authors.

Alireza MansouriDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Laureen D HachemDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sheila MansouriMacFeeters Hamilton Centre for Neuro-Oncology Research, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Farshad NassiriDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Normand J LaperriereDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Daniel XiaDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Neal I LindemanDepartment of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Patrick Y WenCenter for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Arnab ChakravartiRadiation Oncology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Minesh P MehtaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida, USA.
Monika E HegiDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Roger StuppMalnati Brain Tumor Institute of the Lurie Cancer Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Kenneth D AldapeDepartment of Laboratory Pathology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Gelareh ZadehDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

Single-cell DNA methylation analysis of human cancerZIABC011846 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI ALDAPE, KENNETH · 2018 to 2025
$8.4M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary malignant brain tumor, with a universally poor prognosis. The emergence of molecular biomarkers has had a significant impact on histological typing and diagnosis, as well as predicting patient survival and response to treatment. The methylation status of the O6-methylguanine-DNA methyl-transferase (MGMT) gene promoter is one such molecular biomarker. Despite the strong evidence supporting the role of MGMT methylation status in prognostication, its routine implementation in clinical practice has been challenging. The methods and optimal cutoff definitions for MGMT status determination remain controversial. Variation in detection methods between laboratories presents a major challenge for consensus. Moreover, consideration of other clinical and genetic/epigenetic factors must also be incorporated into treatment decision making. In this review, we distill the available evidence to summarize our position on the optimal use of available assays, and propose strategies for resolving cases with equivocal methylation status and a framework for incorporating this important assay into research and clinical practice.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticPromoter Regions, GeneticDNA Modification MethylasesDNA Repair EnzymesGlioblastomaHumansPrognosisTumor Suppressor ProteinsDNA Modification MethylasesDNA Repair EnzymesMGMT protein, humanTumor Suppressor ProteinsdiagnosticgliomamethylationMGMTmolecular markersprognostic

Identifiers

PMID30189035
PMCPMC6374759

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.