Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35047819›Full record

ReviewNeuro-oncology advances

Postmortem brain donations vs premortem surgical resections for glioblastoma research: viewing the matter as a whole.

Cassandra P Griffin, Christine L Paul, Kimberley L Alexander, Marjorie M Walker, Hubert Hondermarck, James Lynam

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. ProNGF Expression and Targeting in Glioblastoma Multiforme.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Cassandra P GriffinSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4107-0921
Christine L PaulSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0504-5246
Kimberley L AlexanderNeurosurgery Department, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7239-039X
Marjorie M WalkerSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Hubert HondermarckHunter Cancer Research Alliance, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
James LynamSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6742-820X
Hunter Medical Research Institute · AUHunter Cancer Research Alliance · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There have been limited improvements in diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of primary brain cancers, including glioblastoma, over the past 10 years. This is largely attributable to persistent deficits in understanding brain tumor biology and pathogenesis due to a lack of high-quality biological research specimens. Traditional, premortem, surgical biopsy samples do not allow full characterization of the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of glioblastoma, nor capture end-stage disease to allow full evaluation of the evolutionary and mutational processes that lead to treatment resistance and recurrence. Furthermore, the necessity of ensuring sufficient viable tissue is available for histopathological diagnosis, while minimizing surgically induced functional deficit, leaves minimal tissue for research purposes and results in formalin fixation of most surgical specimens. Postmortem brain donation programs are rapidly gaining support due to their unique ability to address the limitations associated with surgical tissue sampling. Collecting, processing, and preserving tissue samples intended solely for research provides both a spatial and temporal view of tumor heterogeneity as well as the opportunity to fully characterize end-stage disease from histological and molecular standpoints. This review explores the limitations of traditional sample collection and the opportunities afforded by postmortem brain donations for future neurobiological cancer research.

Indexed as

biobankingbraincancerglioblastomapostmortem

Identifiers

PMID35047819
PMCPMC8760897
OpenAlexW3217360818

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.