Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30452544›Full record

ArticleAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2019

Evolutionary dynamics of residual disease in human glioblastoma.

I Spiteri, G Caravagna, G D Cresswell, A Vatsiou, D Nichol, A Acar, L Ermini, K Chkhaidze, B Werner, R Mair and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

I SpiteriEvolutionary Genomics & Modelling Lab, Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London.
G CaravagnaEvolutionary Genomics & Modelling Lab, Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London.
G D CresswellEvolutionary Genomics & Modelling Lab, Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London.
A VatsiouEvolutionary Genomics & Modelling Lab, Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London.
D NicholEvolutionary Genomics & Modelling Lab, Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London.
A AcarEvolutionary Genomics & Modelling Lab, Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London.
L ErminiEvolutionary Genomics & Modelling Lab, Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London; Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London.
K ChkhaidzeEvolutionary Genomics & Modelling Lab, Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London.
B WernerEvolutionary Genomics & Modelling Lab, Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London.
R MairDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
E BrognaroDepartment of Neurosurgery, S. Maria Della Misericordia Hospital, Rovigo, Italy.
R G W VerhaakJackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, USA.
G SanguinettiSchool of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
S G M PiccirilloDivision of Hematology and Oncolog, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA. Electronic address: sara.piccirillo@utsouthwestern.edu.
C WattsInstitute of Cancer Genome Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. Electronic address: c.watts.2@bham.ac.uk.
A SottorivaEvolutionary Genomics & Modelling Lab, Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London. Electronic address: andrea.sottoriva@icr.ac.uk.
Institute of Cancer Research · CAJackson Laboratory · USOspedale Santa Maria della Misericordia di Rovigo · ITThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 22909Cancer Research UK A22909Cancer Research UK C9221/A11869Cancer Research UK C9221/A16700Medical Research Council MR/P014712/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 105104/Z/14/ZWellcome Trust 202778/B/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlioblastoma is the most common and aggressive adult brain malignancy against which conventional surgery and chemoradiation provide limited benefit. Even when a good treatment response is obtained, recurrence inevitably occurs either locally (∼80%) or distally (∼20%), driven by cancer clones that are often genomically distinct from those in the primary tumour. Glioblastoma cells display a characteristic infiltrative phenotype, invading the surrounding tissue and often spreading across the whole brain. Cancer cells responsible for relapse can reside in two compartments of residual disease that are left behind after treatment: the infiltrated normal brain parenchyma and the sub-ventricular zone. However, these two sources of residual disease in glioblastoma are understudied because of the difficulty in sampling these regions during surgery. PATIENT AND

methodsHere, we present the results of whole-exome sequencing of 69 multi-region samples collected using fluorescence-guided resection from 11 patients, including the infiltrating tumour margin and the sub-ventricular zone for each patient, as well as matched blood. We used a phylogenomic approach to dissect the spatio-temporal evolution of each tumour and unveil the relation between residual disease and the main tumour mass. We also analysed two patients with paired primary-recurrence samples with matched residual disease.

resultsOur results suggest that infiltrative subclones can arise early during tumour growth in a subset of patients. After treatment, the infiltrative subclones may seed the growth of a recurrent tumour, thus representing the 'missing link' between the primary tumour and recurrent disease.

conclusionsThese results are consistent with recognised clinical phenotypic behaviour and suggest that more specific therapeutic targeting of cells in the infiltrated brain parenchyma may improve patient's outcome.

Indexed as

Exome SequencingBrainClonal EvolutionFemaleGenome, HumanGlioblastomaHumansMaleMutationNeoplasm ProteinsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm, ResidualPhenotypePhylogenyPolymorphism, Single NucleotideNeoplasm Proteinscancer evolutionglioblastomaphylogeneticssub-ventricular zonetumour margin

Identifiers

PMID30452544
PMCPMC6442656
OpenAlexW2901970540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.