Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33947447›Full record

SynthesisClinical epigenetics2021

Development of a prognostic risk model for clear cell renal cell carcinoma by systematic evaluation of DNA methylation markers.

S C Joosten, S N O Odeh, A Koch, N Buekers, M J B Aarts, M M L L Baldewijns, L Van Neste, S van Kuijk, L J Schouten, P A van den Brandt and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical epigenetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The biology of SCUBE.Journal of biomedical science · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Biomarkers in renal cell carcinoma and their targeted therapies: a review.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. DNA Methylation inCancers · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

S C Joosten *Department of Pathology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
S N O Odeh *Department of Pathology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
A KochDepartment of Pathology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
N BuekersDepartment of Pathology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
M J B AartsDepartment of Medical Oncology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
M M L L BaldewijnsDepartment of Pathology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
L Van NesteDepartment of Pathology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
S van KuijkDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
L J SchoutenDepartment of Epidemiology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
P A van den BrandtDepartment of Epidemiology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
V C Tjan-HeijnenDepartment of Medical Oncology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
M van EngelandDepartment of Pathology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
K M SmitsDepartment of Pathology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. kim.smits@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2097-0533
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLMaastricht University · NLKU Leuven · BE

Funding

Health Holland LSHM17059 (PRECEDE)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent risk models for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) based on clinicopathological factors are sub-optimal in accurately identifying high-risk patients. Here, we perform a head-to-head comparison of previously published DNA methylation markers and propose a potential prognostic model for clear cell RCC (ccRCC). PATIENTS AND

methodsPromoter methylation of PCDH8, BNC1, SCUBE3, GREM1, LAD1, NEFH, RASSF1A, GATA5, SFRP1, CDO1, and NEURL was determined by nested methylation-specific PCR. To identify clinically relevant methylated regions, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) was used to guide primer design. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue samples from 336 non-metastatic ccRCC patients from the prospective Netherlands Cohort Study (NLCS) were used to develop a Cox proportional hazards model using stepwise backward elimination and bootstrapping to correct for optimism. For validation purposes, FFPE ccRCC tissue of 64 patients from the University Hospitals Leuven and a series of 232 cases from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) were used.

resultsMethylation of GREM1, GATA5, LAD1, NEFH, NEURL, and SFRP1 was associated with poor ccRCC-specific survival, independent of age, sex, tumor size, TNM stage or tumor grade. Moreover, the association between GREM1, NEFH, and NEURL methylation and outcome was shown to be dependent on the genomic region. A prognostic biomarker model containing GREM1, GATA5, LAD1, NEFH and NEURL methylation in combination with clinicopathological characteristics, performed better compared to the model with clinicopathological characteristics only (clinical model), in both the NLCS and the validation population with a c-statistic of 0.71 versus 0.65 and a c-statistic of 0.95 versus 0.86 consecutively. However, the biomarker model had limited added prognostic value in the TCGA series with a c-statistic of 0.76 versus 0.75 for the clinical model.

conclusionIn this study we performed a head-to-head comparison of potential prognostic methylation markers for ccRCC using a novel approach to guide primers design which utilizes the optimal location for measuring DNA methylation. Using this approach, we identified five methylation markers that potentially show prognostic value in addition to currently known clinicopathological factors.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Renal CellDNA MethylationEpigenomicsHumansKidney NeoplasmsPrognosisRisk AssessmentBiomarkers, TumorClear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC)DNA methylation biomarkersDNA methylation locationPrognostic modelTCGA data

Identifiers

PMID33947447
PMCPMC8094610
OpenAlexW3158394483

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.