Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35892159›Full record

ArticleNeuropathology and applied neurobiology2022

DNA methylation profiling improves routine diagnosis of paediatric central nervous system tumours: A prospective population-based study.

Elizabeth Schepke, Maja Löfgren, Torsten Pietsch, Thomas Olsson Bontell, Teresia Kling, Anna Wenger, Sandra Ferreyra Vega, Anna Danielsson, Sandor Dosa, Stefan Holm and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuropathology and applied neurobiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Time to adjuvant treatment for newly diagnosed pediatric brain tumors in the molecular era: a single center retrospective study.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

18 authors.

Elizabeth SchepkeChildhood Cancer Centre, Queen Silvia Children's Hospital, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Maja LöfgrenSahlgrenska Centre for Cancer Research, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Torsten PietschDepartment of Neuropathology, DGNN Brain Tumour Reference Centre, University of Bonn Medical Centre, Bonn, Germany.
Thomas Olsson BontellDepartment of Clinical Pathology and Cytology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Teresia KlingSahlgrenska Centre for Cancer Research, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Anna WengerSahlgrenska Centre for Cancer Research, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Sandra Ferreyra VegaSahlgrenska Centre for Cancer Research, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Anna DanielssonSahlgrenska Centre for Cancer Research, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Sandor DosaDepartment of Physiology, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Stefan HolmDepartment of Paediatrics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Anders ÖbergDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Per NymanDepartment of Paediatrics, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Marie Eliasson-HofvanderDepartment of Paediatric Oncology and Haematology, Lund University, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Per-Erik SandströmDepartment of Paediatrics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Stefan M PfisterDepartment of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Birgitta LanneringDepartment of Paediatrics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Magnus SabelChildhood Cancer Centre, Queen Silvia Children's Hospital, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Helena CarénSahlgrenska Centre for Cancer Research, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8584-555X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsPaediatric brain tumours are rare, and establishing a precise diagnosis can be challenging. Analysis of DNA methylation profiles has been shown to be a reliable method to classify central nervous system (CNS) tumours with high accuracy. We aimed to prospectively analyse CNS tumours diagnosed in Sweden, to assess the clinical impact of adding DNA methylation-based classification to standard paediatric brain tumour diagnostics in an unselected cohort.

methodsAll CNS tumours diagnosed in children (0-18 years) during 2017-2020 were eligible for inclusion provided sufficient tumour material was available. Tumours were analysed using genome-wide DNA methylation profiling and classified by the MNP brain tumour classifier. The initial histopathological diagnosis was compared with the DNA methylation-based classification. For incongruent results, a blinded re-evaluation was performed by an experienced neuropathologist.

resultsTwo hundred forty tumours with a histopathology-based diagnosis were profiled. A high-confidence methylation score of 0.84 or more was reached in 78% of the cases. In 69%, the histopathological diagnosis was confirmed, and for some of these also refined, 6% were incongruent, and the re-evaluation favoured the methylation-based classification. In the remaining 3% of cases, the methylation class was non-contributory. The change in diagnosis would have had a direct impact on the clinical management in 5% of all patients.

conclusionsIntegrating DNA methylation-based tumour classification into routine clinical analysis improves diagnostics and provides molecular information that is important for treatment decisions. The results from methylation profiling should be interpreted in the context of clinical and histopathological information.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsCentral Nervous System NeoplasmsChildCohort StudiesDNA MethylationHumansProspective StudiesdiagnosticsDNA methylation profilingmolecular classificationpaediatric brain tumours

Identifiers

PMID35892159
PMCPMC9543790

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.