ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2022
Risk Stratification of Childhood Medulloblastoma Using Integrated Diagnosis: Discrepancies with Clinical Risk Stratification.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecent genomic studies identified four discrete molecular subgroups of medulloblastoma (MB), and the risk stratification of childhood MB in the context of subgroups was refined in 2015. In this study, we investigated the effect of molecular subgroups on the risk stratification of childhood MB.
methodsThe nCounter® system and a customized cancer panel were used for molecular subgrouping and risk stratification in archived tissues.
resultsA total of 44 patients were included in this study. In clinical risk stratification, based on the presence of residual tumor/metastasis and histological findings, 24 and 20 patients were classified into the average-risk and high-risk groups, respectively. Molecular subgroups were successfully defined in 37 patients using limited gene expression analysis, and DNA panel sequencing additionally classified the molecular subgroups in three patients. Collectively, 40 patients were classified into molecular subgroups as follows: WNT (n = 7), SHH (n = 4), Group 3 (n = 8), and Group 4 (n = 21). Excluding the four patients whose molecular subgroups could not be determined, among the 17 average-risk group patients in clinical risk stratification, one patient in the SHH group with the
conclusionThe new risk stratification incorporating integrated diagnosis showed some discrepancies with clinical risk stratification. Risk stratification based on precise molecular subgrouping is needed for the tailored treatment of MB patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.