Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36402744›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology2023

Phase I study of a novel glioblastoma radiation therapy schedule exploiting cell-state plasticity.

Jamie A Dean, Shyam K Tanguturi, Daniel Cagney, Kee-Young Shin, Gilbert Youssef, Ayal Aizer, Rifaquat Rahman, Lubna Hammoudeh, David Reardon, Eudocia Lee and 9 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase I
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03557372 (Mathematical Model-Adapted Radiation Fractionation Schedule for Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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.

NCT03557372 nacompletednot on this map

Mathematical Model-Adapted Radiation Fractionation Schedule for Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma (MARS-Glio)

TypeinterventionalSponsorDana-Farber Cancer InstituteRan2018 to 2022Enrolled14ConditionsRecurrent GlioblastomaArmsMathematical Model-Adapted Radiation Fractionation Schedule
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 75 Years of Mathematical Oncology.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

19 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Jamie A DeanDepartment of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Shyam K TanguturiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Daniel CagneyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Kee-Young ShinDepartment of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Gilbert YoussefCenter for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ayal AizerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Rifaquat RahmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Lubna HammoudehDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
David ReardonCenter for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Eudocia LeeCenter for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jorg DietrichCenter for Neuro-Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Kaoru TamuraDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
Masaru AoyagiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
Lacey WickershamDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Patrick Y WenCenter for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Paul CatalanoDepartment of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Daphne Haas-KoganDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2378-4800
Brian M AlexanderDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Franziska MichorDepartment of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Harvard University · USTokyo Medical and Dental University · JPBroad Institute · US

Funding

Project 3: Single Cell Measures of Intratumor Diversity for Optimal Breast Cancer TherapyU54CA193461 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI HOLLAND, ERIC C., MICHOR, FRANZISKA · 2015 to 2020
$11.2M
Cancer Research UK 28990Cancer Research UK C7893/A28990NCI NIH HHS U54 CA193461
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlioblastomas comprise heterogeneous cell populations with dynamic, bidirectional plasticity between treatment-resistant stem-like and treatment-sensitive differentiated states, with treatment influencing this process. However, current treatment protocols do not account for this plasticity. Previously, we generated a mathematical model based on preclinical experiments to describe this process and optimize a radiation therapy fractionation schedule that substantially increased survival relative to standard fractionation in a murine glioblastoma model.

methodsWe developed statistical models to predict the survival benefit of interventions to glioblastoma patients based on the corresponding survival benefit in the mouse model used in our preclinical study. We applied our mathematical model of glioblastoma radiation response to optimize a radiation therapy fractionation schedule for patients undergoing re-irradiation for glioblastoma and developed a first-in-human trial (NCT03557372) to assess the feasibility and safety of administering our schedule.

resultsOur statistical modeling predicted that the hazard ratio when comparing our novel radiation schedule with a standard schedule would be 0.74. Our mathematical modeling suggested that a practical, near-optimal schedule for re-irradiation of recurrent glioblastoma patients was 3.96 Gy × 7 (1 fraction/day) followed by 1.0 Gy × 9 (3 fractions/day). Our optimized schedule was successfully administered to 14/14 (100%) patients.

conclusionsA novel radiation therapy schedule based on mathematical modeling of cell-state plasticity is feasible and safe to administer to glioblastoma patients.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGlioblastomaAnimalsDose Fractionation, RadiationHumansMiceModels, StatisticalProportional Hazards Modelscell-state plasticityclinical trialglioblastomamathematical modelingradiation oncology

Identifiers

PMID36402744
PMCPMC10237407
OpenAlexW4309438425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.