Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36497420›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

Immunological and Genomic Analysis Reveals Clinically Relevant Distinctions between Angiosarcoma Subgroups.

Stefan G van Ravensteijn, Yvonne M H Versleijen-Jonkers, Melissa H S Hillebrandt-Roeffen, Marije E Weidema, Maikel J L Nederkoorn, Kalijn F Bol, Mark A J Gorris, Kiek Verrijp, Leonie I Kroeze, Tessa J J de Bitter and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cemiplimab in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Secondary Angiosarcomas (CEMangio): A Phase II Clinical Trial and Biomarker Analyses.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stefan G van RavensteijnDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4069-3932
Yvonne M H Versleijen-JonkersDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7623-0505
Melissa H S Hillebrandt-RoeffenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marije E WeidemaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Maikel J L NederkoornDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Kalijn F BolDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mark A J GorrisDepartment of Tumor Immunology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3621-226X
Kiek VerrijpDepartment of Tumor Immunology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Leonie I KroezeDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2666-1742
Tessa J J de BitterDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8669-3834
Richarda M de VoerDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8222-0343
Uta E FluckeDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ingrid M E DesarDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

Sarcoma Foundation of America 20-15
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Angiosarcomas (AS) are extremely rare and aggressive vascular malignancies subdivided in de novo primary AS (pAS) and secondary AS (sAS). We hypothesize that the combination of immunological and genomic profiles significantly differs between primary and secondary AS, with potential impact on treatment strategies and a role for immunotherapy. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes were analyzed using multiplex immunohistochemistry from 79 pAS and 178 sAS. Median cell density was significantly higher in sAS for CD3+ T-cells (p < 0.001), CD8+ cytotoxic T-cells (p = 0.033), CD4+ T-helper cells (p < 0.001) and FoxP3+ T-regulatory cells (p < 0.001). CD20+ B-cell density was comparable (p = 0.417). Comprehensive genomic profiling was performed in 25 pAS and 25 sAS. A (likely) pathogenic mutation was detected in 80% of pAS vs. 88% of sAS (p = 0.702). Amplifications were found in 15% of pAS vs. 84% of sAS (p < 0.001). DNA damage response (DDR) pathway mutations (p = 0.021) and MYC amplifications (p < 0.001) were predominantly seen in sAS. In conclusion we observed a clear and clinical relevant distinction in immune infiltration and genomic profiles between pAS and sAS. The T-cell infiltrated tumor microenvironment and frequent DDR gene mutations, especially in sAS, warrant clinical trials with immunotherapy.

Indexed as

angiosarcomabiomarkergeneticsimmunotherapysarcomatumor microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID36497420
PMCPMC9739001
OpenAlexW4311049263

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.