Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36012105›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of molecular sciences2022

Molecular Biomarkers in Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Heena Sareen, Yafeng Ma, Therese M Becker, Tara L Roberts, Paul de Souza, Branka Powter

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Heena SareenCentre for Circulating Tumour Cell Diagnostics and Research, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0671-0663
Yafeng MaCentre for Circulating Tumour Cell Diagnostics and Research, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0522-8771
Therese M BeckerCentre for Circulating Tumour Cell Diagnostics and Research, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5636-9902
Tara L RobertsCentre for Circulating Tumour Cell Diagnostics and Research, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9266-0943
Paul de SouzaSouth-Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia.
Branka PowterCentre for Circulating Tumour Cell Diagnostics and Research, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia.
Camden and Campbelltown Hospitals · AUUNSW Sydney · AUIngham Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly aggressive cancer with poor prognosis that needs better treatment modalities. Moreover, there is a lack of reliable biomarkers to predict the response and outcome of current or newly designed therapies. While several molecular markers have been proposed as potential biomarkers for GBM, their uptake into clinical settings is slow and impeded by marker heterogeneity. Detailed assessment of prognostic and predictive value for biomarkers in well-defined clinical trial settings, if available, is scattered throughout the literature. Here we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic and predictive significance of clinically relevant molecular biomarkers in GBM patients. Material and methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to retrieve publications from 3 databases (Pubmed, Cochrane and Embase) from January 2010 to December 2021, using specific terms. The combined hazard ratios (HR) and confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to evaluate the association of biomarkers with overall survival (OS) in GBM patients. Results: Twenty-six out of 1831 screened articles were included in this review. Nineteen articles were included in the meta-analyses, and 7 articles were quantitatively summarised. Fourteen studies with 1231 GBM patients showed a significant association of MGMT methylation with better OS with the pooled HR of 1.66 (95% CI 1.32−2.09, p < 0.0001, random effect). Five studies including 541 GBM patients analysed for the prognostic significance of IDH1 mutation showed significantly better OS in patients with IDH1 mutation with a pooled HR of 2.37 (95% CI 1.81−3.12; p < 0.00001]. Meta-analysis performed on 5 studies including 575 GBM patients presenting with either amplification or high expression of EGFR gene did not reveal any prognostic significance with a pooled HR of 1.31 (95% CI 0.96−1.79; p = 0.08). Conclusions: MGMT promoter methylation and IDH1 mutation are significantly associated with better OS in GBM patients. No significant associations were found between EGFR amplification or overexpression with OS.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGlioblastomaBiomarkersBiomarkers, TumorDNA MethylationDNA Modification MethylasesDNA Repair EnzymesHumansTumor Suppressor ProteinsBiomarkersBiomarkers, TumorDNA Modification MethylasesDNA Repair EnzymesTumor Suppressor Proteinsglioblastomameta-analysisprognostic biomarkerssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36012105
PMCPMC9408540
OpenAlexW4293680261

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.