Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33881725›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2021

PTEN mutations predict benefit from tumor treating fields (TTFields) therapy in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

Antonio Dono, Sonali Mitra, Mauli Shah, Takeshi Takayasu, Jay-Jiguang Zhu, Nitin Tandon, Chirag B Patel, Yoshua Esquenazi, Leomar Y Ballester

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Post-recurrence management of malignant glial brain tumors: therapeutic strategies, evidence and limitations, palliative care, terminal sedation, and end-of-life considerations.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Antonio DonoVivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center At Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8041-8399
Sonali MitraDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center At Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Mauli ShahDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center At Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Takeshi TakayasuDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center At Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Jay-Jiguang ZhuVivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center At Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Nitin TandonVivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center At Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2752-2365
Chirag B PatelDepartment of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Yoshua EsquenaziVivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center At Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Yoshua.EsquenaziLevy@uth.tmc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9757-1453
Leomar Y BallesterVivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center At Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Leomar.Y.Ballester@uth.tmc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6854-6830
Memorial Hermann · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USRice University · USStanford University · US

Funding

Development and Validation of a CSF Liquid Biopsy for Molecular Characterization and Monitoring of Patients with Central Nervous System TumorsK08CA241651 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI BALLESTER, LEOMAR Y · 2020 to 2024
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS K08 CA241651NCI NIH HHS K08CA241651
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOptimal treatment for recurrent glioblastoma isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 wild-type (rGBM IDH-WT) is not standardized, resulting in multiple therapeutic approaches. A phase III clinical trial showed that tumor treating fields (TTFields) monotherapy provided comparable survival benefits to physician's chemotherapy choice in rGBM. However, patients did not equally benefit from TTFields, highlighting the importance of identifying predictive biomarkers of TTFields efficacy.

methodsA retrospective review of an institutional database with 530 patients with infiltrating gliomas was performed. Patients with IDH-WT rGBM receiving TTFields at first recurrence were included. Tumors were evaluated by next-generation sequencing for mutations in 205 cancer-related genes. Post-progression survival (PPS) was examined using the log-rank test and multivariate Cox-regression analysis.

results149 rGBM patients were identified of which 29 (19%) were treated with TTFields. No significant difference in median PPS was observed between rGBM patients who received versus did not receive TTFields (13.9 versus 10.9 months, p = 0.068). However, within the TTFields-treated group (n = 29), PPS was improved in PTEN-mutant (n = 14) versus PTEN-WT (n = 15) rGBM, (22.2 versus 11.6 months, p = 0.017). Within the PTEN-mutant group (n = 70, 47%), patients treated with TTFields (n = 14) had longer median PPS (22.2 versus 9.3 months, p = 0.005). No PPS benefit was observed in PTEN-WT patients receiving TTFields (n = 79, 53%).

conclusionsTTFields therapy conferred a significant PPS benefit in PTEN-mutant rGBM. Understanding the molecular mechanisms underpinning the differences in response to TTFields therapy could help elucidate the mechanism of action of TTFields and identify the rGBM patients most likely to benefit from this therapeutic option.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGlioblastomaChronic DiseaseHumansMutationPTEN PhosphohydrolaseRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesPTEN PhosphohydrolasePTEN protein, humanIDH-wildtypePredictive biomarkerPTENRecurrent glioblastomaTumor treating fields (TTFields)

Identifiers

PMID33881725
PMCPMC8363068
OpenAlexW3155545925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.