Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34150629›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2021

Blood-Based Biomarkers for Glioma in the Context of Gliomagenesis: A Systematic Review.

Hamza Ali, Romée Harting, Ralph de Vries, Meedie Ali, Thomas Wurdinger, Myron G Best

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Cell-Free miRNAs as Non-Invasive Biomarkers in Brain Tumors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hamza AliDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brain Tumor Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center and Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Romée HartingDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brain Tumor Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center and Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ralph de VriesMedical Library, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Meedie AliDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brain Tumor Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center and Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Thomas WurdingerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brain Tumor Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center and Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Myron G BestDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brain Tumor Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center and Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Academic Medical Center · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGliomas are the most common and aggressive tumors of the central nervous system. A robust and widely used blood-based biomarker for glioma has not yet been identified. In recent years, a plethora of new research on blood-based biomarkers for glial tumors has been published. In this review, we question which molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, circulating cells, and metabolomics, are most promising blood-based biomarkers for glioma diagnosis, prognosis, monitoring and other purposes, and align them to the seminal processes of cancer.

methodsThe Pubmed and Embase databases were systematically searched. Biomarkers were categorized in the identified biomolecules and biosources. Biomarker characteristics were assessed using the area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity and/or specificity values and the degree of statistical significance among the assessed clinical groups was reported.

results7,919 references were identified: 3,596 in PubMed and 4,323 in Embase. Following screening of titles, abstracts and availability of full-text, 262 articles were included in the final systematic review. Panels of multiple biomarkers together consistently reached AUCs >0.8 and accuracies >80% for various purposes but especially for diagnostics. The accuracy of single biomarkers, consisting of only one measurement, was far more variable, but single microRNAs and proteins are generally more promising as compared to other biomarker types.

conclusionPanels of microRNAs and proteins are most promising biomarkers, while single biomarkers such as GFAP, IL-10 and individual miRNAs also hold promise. It is possible that panels are more accurate once these are involved in different, complementary cancer-related molecular pathways, because not all pathways may be dysregulated in cancer patients. As biomarkers seem to be increasingly dysregulated in patients with short survival, higher tumor grades and more pathological tumor types, it can be hypothesized that more pathways are dysregulated as the degree of malignancy of the glial tumor increases. Despite, none of the biomarkers found in the literature search seem to be currently ready for clinical implementation, and most of the studies report only preliminary application of the identified biomarkers. Hence, large-scale validation of currently identified and potential novel biomarkers to show clinical utility is warranted.

Indexed as

blooddiagnosticsglioblastomagliomaliquid biopsy

Identifiers

PMID34150629
PMCPMC8211985
OpenAlexW3172384907

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.