Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36377252›Full record

ArticleBrain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland)2023

Clinical implementation of integrated molecular-morphologic risk prediction for meningioma.

Thomas Hielscher, Martin Sill, Philipp Sievers, Damian Stichel, Sebastian Brandner, David T W Jones, Andreas von Deimling, Felix Sahm, Sybren L N Maas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Thomas HielscherDepartment of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Martin SillHopp Children's Cancer Center Heidelberg (KiTZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Philipp SieversDepartment of Neuropathology, University Hospital Heidelberg and CCU Neuropathology, German Consortium for Translational Cancer Research (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Damian StichelDepartment of Neuropathology, University Hospital Heidelberg and CCU Neuropathology, German Consortium for Translational Cancer Research (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Sebastian BrandnerDivision of Neuropathology, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9821-0342
David T W JonesHopp Children's Cancer Center Heidelberg (KiTZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Andreas von DeimlingDepartment of Neuropathology, University Hospital Heidelberg and CCU Neuropathology, German Consortium for Translational Cancer Research (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Felix SahmDepartment of Neuropathology, University Hospital Heidelberg and CCU Neuropathology, German Consortium for Translational Cancer Research (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Sybren L N MaasDepartment of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8745-4405
German Cancer Research Center · DEHopp Children's Cancer Center Heidelberg · DELeiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N004272/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk prediction for meningioma tumors was until recently almost exclusively based on morphological features of the tumor. To improve risk prediction, multiple models have been established that incorporate morphological and molecular features for an integrated risk prediction score. One such model is the integrated molecular-morphologic meningioma integrated score (IntS), which allocates points to the histological grade, epigenetic methylation family and specific copy-number variations. After publication of the IntS, questions arose in the neuropathological community about the practical and clinical implementation of the IntS, specifically regarding the calling of CNVs, the applicability of the newly available version (v12.5) of the brain tumor classifier and the need for incorporation of TERT-promoter and CDKN2A/B status analysis in the IntS calculation. To investigate and validate these questions additional analyses of the discovery (n = 514), retrospective validation (n = 184) and prospective validation (n = 287) cohorts used for IntS discovery and validation were performed. Our findings suggest that any loss over 5% of the chromosomal arm suffices for the calling of a CNV, that input from the v12.5 classifier is as good or better than the dedicated meningioma classifier (v2.4) and that there is most likely no need for additional testing for TERT-promoter mutations and/or homozygous losses of CDKN2A/B when defining the IntS for an individual patient. The findings from this study help facilitate the clinical implementation of IntS-based risk prediction for meningioma patients.

Indexed as

Meningeal NeoplasmsMeningiomaEpigenomicsHumansNeoplasm GradingRetrospective Studiesbrain tumorsmeningiomamolecular biomarkersrisk predictiontumor classification

Identifiers

PMID36377252
PMCPMC10154374
OpenAlexW4309026632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.