Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32404931›Full record

ArticleLaboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology2020

A simplified integrated molecular and immunohistochemistry-based algorithm allows high accuracy prediction of glioblastoma transcriptional subtypes.

Francesca Orzan, Francesca Pagani, Manuela Cominelli, Luca Triggiani, Stefano Calza, Francesca De Bacco, Daniela Medicina, Piera Balzarini, Pier Paolo Panciani, Roberto Liserre and 8 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Immunohistochemical Profile of Parathyroid Tumours: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Glioblastoma Stem Cells-Useful Tools in the Battle against Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Mitochondrial DNA Alterations in Glioblastoma (GBM).International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  14. Review
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

18 authors.

Francesca Orzan *Laboratory of Cancer Stem Cell Research, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO IRCCS, Torino, Italy.
Francesca Pagani *Pathology Unit, Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1671-5671
Manuela CominelliPathology Unit, Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Luca TriggianiRadiation Oncology, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Stefano CalzaBiostatistics & Bioinformatics Unit, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Francesca De BaccoLaboratory of Cancer Stem Cell Research, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO IRCCS, Torino, Italy.
Daniela MedicinaPathology Unit, Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Piera BalzariniPathology Unit, Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Pier Paolo PancianiNeurosurgery, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Roberto LiserreNeuroradiology, Spedali Civili of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Michela BuglioneRadiation Oncology, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Marco Maria FontanellaNeurosurgery, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Enzo MedicoLaboratory of Oncogenomics, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO IRCCS, Brescia, Italy.
Rossella GalliNeural Stem Cell Biology Unit, Division of Regenerative Medicine, Stem Cells and Gene Therapy, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Brescia, Italy.
Claudio IsellaLaboratory of Oncogenomics, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO IRCCS, Brescia, Italy.
Carla BoccaccioLaboratory of Cancer Stem Cell Research, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO IRCCS, Torino, Italy.
Pietro Luigi PolianiPathology Unit, Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy. luigi.poliani@unibs.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5662-8978
on behalf of the Neuro-Oncology group of Spedali Civili of Brescia

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glioblastomas (GBM) can be classified into three major transcriptional subgroups (proneural, mesenchymal, classical), underlying different molecular alterations, prognosis, and response to therapy. However, transcriptional analysis is not routinely feasible and assessment of a simplified method for glioblastoma subclassification is required. We propose an integrated molecular and immunohistochemical approach aimed at identifying GBM subtypes in routine paraffin-embedded material. RNA-sequencing analysis was performed on representative samples (n = 51) by means of a "glioblastoma transcriptional subtypes (GliTS) redux" custom gene signature including a restricted number (n = 90) of upregulated genes validated on the TCGA dataset. With this dataset, immunohistochemical profiles, based on expression of a restricted panel of gene classifiers, were integrated by a machine-learning approach to generate a GliTS based on protein quantification that allowed an efficient GliTS assignment when applied to an extended cohort (n = 197). GliTS redux maintained high levels of correspondence with the original GliTS classification using the TCGA dataset. The machine-learning approach designed an immunohistochemical (IHC)-based classification, whose concordance was 79.5% with the transcriptional- based classification, and reached 90% for the mesenchymal subgroup. Distribution and survival of GliTS were in line with reported data, with the mesenchymal subgroup given the worst prognosis. Notably, the algorithm allowed the identification of cases with comparable probability to be assigned to different GliTS, thus falling within overlapping regions and reflecting an extreme heterogeneous phenotype that mirrors the underlying genetic and biological tumor heterogeneity. Indeed, while mesenchymal and classical subgroups were well segregated, the proneural types frequently showed a mixed proneural/classical phenotype, predicted as proneural by the algorithm, but with comparable probability of being assigned to the classical subtype. These cases, characterized by concomitant high expression of EGFR and proneural biomarkers, showed lower survival. Collectively, these data indicate that a restricted panel of highly sensitive immunohistochemical markers can efficiently predict GliTS with high accuracy and significant association with different clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingAgedAlgorithmsBiomarkers, TumorBrain NeoplasmsCluster AnalysisCohort StudiesFemaleGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticGlioblastomaHumansImmunohistochemistryMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedRNA-SeqBiomarkers, Tumor

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.