Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30324390›Full record

Observational studyEuropean radiology2019

Morphological MRI-based features provide pretreatment survival prediction in glioblastoma.

Julián Pérez-Beteta, David Molina-García, Alicia Martínez-González, Araceli Henares-Molina, Mariano Amo-Salas, Belén Luque, Elena Arregui, Manuel Calvo, José M Borrás, Juan Martino and 16 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Artificial intelligence-based MRI radiomics and radiogenomics in glioma.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. A Head-to-Head Comparison ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2022
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors.

Julián Pérez-BetetaMathematical Oncology Laboratory (MôLAB), Department of Mathematics, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain.
David Molina-GarcíaMathematical Oncology Laboratory (MôLAB), Department of Mathematics, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain. david.molina@uclm.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6104-3894
Alicia Martínez-GonzálezMathematical Oncology Laboratory (MôLAB), Department of Mathematics, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Araceli Henares-MolinaMathematical Oncology Laboratory (MôLAB), Department of Mathematics, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Mariano Amo-SalasMathematical Oncology Laboratory (MôLAB), Department of Mathematics, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Belén LuqueMathematical Oncology Laboratory (MôLAB), Department of Mathematics, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Elena ArreguiDepartment of Radiology, Hospital General de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Manuel CalvoDepartment of Radiology, Hospital General de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain.
José M BorrásDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hospital General de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Juan MartinoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla and Fundación Instituto de Investigación Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain.
Carlos VelásquezDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla and Fundación Instituto de Investigación Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain.
Bárbara Meléndez-AsensioDepartment of Molecular Biology, Hospital Virgen de la Salud, Toledo, Spain.
Ángel Rodríguez de LopeDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hospital Virgen de la Salud, Toledo, Spain.
Raquel MorenoDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Virgen de la Salud, Toledo, Spain.
Juan A BarciaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Beatriz AsenjoDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Carlos Haya, Málaga, Spain.
Manuel BenavidesDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Carlos Haya, Málaga, Spain.
Ismael HerruzoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Carlos Haya, Málaga, Spain.
Pedro C LaraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Doctor Negrín, Gran Canaria, Spain.
Raquel CabreraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Doctor Negrín, Gran Canaria, Spain.
David AlbilloDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Miguel NavarroDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Luis A Pérez-RomasantaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Antonio RevertDepartment of Radiology, Hospital de Manises, Valencia, Spain.
Estanislao AranaDepartment of Radiology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain.
Víctor M Pérez-GarcíaMathematical Oncology Laboratory (MôLAB), Department of Mathematics, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain.

Funding

James S. McDonnell Foundation 220020450Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad/FEDER MTM2015-71200-R
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe wished to determine whether tumor morphology descriptors obtained from pretreatment magnetic resonance images and clinical variables could predict survival for glioblastoma patients.

methodsA cohort of 404 glioblastoma patients (311 discoveries and 93 validations) was used in the study. Pretreatment volumetric postcontrast T1-weighted magnetic resonance images were segmented to obtain the relevant morphological measures. Kaplan-Meier, Cox proportional hazards, correlations, and Harrell's concordance indexes (c-indexes) were used for the statistical analysis.

resultsA linear prognostic model based on the outstanding variables (age, contrast-enhanced (CE) rim width, and surface regularity) identified a group of patients with significantly better survival (p < 0.001, HR = 2.57) with high accuracy (discovery c-index = 0.74; validation c-index = 0.77). A similar model applied to totally resected patients was also able to predict survival (p < 0.001, HR = 3.43) with high predictive value (discovery c-index = 0.81; validation c-index = 0.92). Biopsied patients with better survival were well identified (p < 0.001, HR = 7.25) by a model including age and CE volume (c-index = 0.87).

conclusionsSimple linear models based on small sets of meaningful MRI-based pretreatment morphological features and age predicted survival of glioblastoma patients to a high degree of accuracy. The partition of the population using the extent of resection improved the prognostic value of those measures. KEY POINTS: • A combination of two MRI-based morphological features (CE rim width and surface regularity) and patients' age outperformed previous prognosis scores for glioblastoma. • Prognosis models for homogeneous surgical procedure groups led to even more accurate survival prediction based on Kaplan-Meier analysis and concordance indexes.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrain NeoplasmsFemaleGlioblastomaHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisYoung AdultBiomarkersGlioblastomaMultivariate analysisPrognosisSurvival analysis

Identifiers

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.