Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32072658›Full record

ArticleNeuropathology and applied neurobiology2020

Brain tumour diagnostics using a DNA methylation-based classifier as a diagnostic support tool.

L P Priesterbach-Ackley, H B Boldt, J K Petersen, N Bervoets, D Scheie, B P Ulhøi, M Gardberg, T Brännström, S H Torp, E Aronica and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuropathology and applied neurobiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

71 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

11 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

16 authors.

L P Priesterbach-AckleyDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3480-634X
H B BoldtDepartment of Pathology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
J K PetersenDepartment of Pathology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5093-5985
N BervoetsDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
D ScheieDepartment of Pathology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
B P UlhøiDepartment of Pathology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
M GardbergDepartment of Pathology, Turku University Hospital and Institute of Biomedicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
T BrännströmDepartment of Pathology, Norrlands University Hospital, Umeå, Sweden.
S H TorpDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
E AronicaDepartment of Neuropathology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
B KüstersDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
W F A den DunnenDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
F Y F L de VosDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
P WesselingPrincess Máxima Centre for Paediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
W W J de LengDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
B W KristensenDepartment of Pathology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsMethylation profiling (MP) is increasingly incorporated in the diagnostic process of central nervous system (CNS) tumours at our centres in The Netherlands and Scandinavia. We aimed to identify the benefits and challenges of MP as a support tool for CNS tumour diagnostics.

methodsAbout 502 CNS tumour samples were analysed using (850 k) MP. Profiles were matched with the DKFZ/Heidelberg CNS Tumour Classifier. For each case, the final pathological diagnosis was compared to the diagnosis before MP.

resultsIn 54.4% (273/502) of all analysed cases, the suggested methylation class (calibrated score ≥0.9) corresponded with the initial pathological diagnosis. The diagnosis of 24.5% of these cases (67/273) was more refined after incorporation of the MP result. In 9.8% of cases (49/502), the MP result led to a new diagnosis, resulting in an altered WHO grade in 71.4% of these cases (35/49). In 1% of cases (5/502), the suggested class based on MP was initially disregarded/interpreted as misleading, but in retrospect, the MP result predicted the right diagnosis for three of these cases. In six cases, the suggested class was interpreted as 'discrepant but noncontributory'. The remaining 33.7% of cases (169/502) had a calibrated score <0.9, including 7.8% (39/502) for which no class indication was given at all (calibrated score <0.3).

conclusionsMP is a powerful tool to confirm and fine-tune the pathological diagnosis of CNS tumours, and to avoid misdiagnoses. However, it is crucial to interpret the results in the context of clinical, radiological, histopathological and other molecular information.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalDNA MethylationAdolescentAdultAgedBrain NeoplasmsChildFemaleGene Expression ProfilingHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adultcentral nervous system tumoursdiagnosticsmethylation profiling

Identifiers

PMID32072658
PMCPMC7496466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.