Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31844891›Full record

ReviewNeuro-oncology2020

Toward a standard pathological and molecular characterization of recurrent glioma in adults: a Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology effort.

Ali S Haider, Martin van den Bent, Patrick Y Wen, Michael A Vogelbaum, Susan Chang, Peter D Canoll, Craig M Horbinski, Jason T Huse

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuro-oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Ali S HaiderDepartments of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Martin van den BentDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Patrick Y WenCenter for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Michael A VogelbaumDepartments of Neurosurgery and Neuro-Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Susan ChangDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Peter D CanollDepartments of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Craig M HorbinskiDepartments of Pathology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Jason T HusePathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Neurological Surgery · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USCenter for Neuro-Oncology · USColumbia University Irving Medical Center · USErasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLMoffitt Cancer Center · US

Funding

Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (NUCATS)UL1TR001422 · NCATS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI D'AQUILA, RICHARD · 2015 to 2023
$56.8M
STINGing GBM: A First-in- Man Clinical Trial in Surgical Resectable Recurrent GBMP50CA221747 · NCI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI Pouya Jamshidi · 2018 to 2026
$21.4M
Tissue Factor as a Key Determinant of IDH1 Mutant versus IDH1 Wild-type Glioma Thrombosis and MalignancyR01NS102669 · NINDS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI HORBINSKI, CRAIG MICHAEL · 2017 to 2021
$1.7M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001422NCI NIH HHS P50 CA221747NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS102669
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regardless of subtype, diffuse gliomas of adulthood are characterized by inexorable progression through treatment. Cancer recurrence in the context of therapy is by no means unique to gliomas. For many tumors residing outside the central nervous system (CNS), tissue-based analyses are routinely employed to document the molecular and cellular features of disease recurrence. Such interventions are inconsistently applied for gliomas, however, and lack rigorous standardization when they are. While many of the reasons underlying these discrepancies reflect pragmatic realities inherent to CNS disease, the suboptimal employment of histological and molecular assessment at recurrence nevertheless represents a missed opportunity to proactively guide patient management and increase knowledge. Herein, we address this quandary by pairing a succinct description of the histological, biological, and molecular characteristics of recurrent glioma with recommendations for how to better standardize and implement quality pathological assessment into patient management. We hope this review will prompt thoughtful revision of standard operating procedures to maximize the utility of glioma re-biopsy.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGliomaAdultHumansReference Standardsadultgliomapathologypseudoprogressionrecurrence

Identifiers

PMID31844891
PMCPMC7158649
OpenAlexW2996692055

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.