Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37066109›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology advances

MR elastography identifies regions of extracellular matrix reorganization associated with shorter survival in glioblastoma patients.

Siri Fløgstad Svensson, Skarphéðinn Halldórsson, Anna Latysheva, Elies Fuster-Garcia, Trine Hjørnevik, Jorunn Fraser-Green, Robin Anthony Birkeland Bugge, Jack Grinband, Sverre Holm, Ralph Sinkus and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. MR Elastography Using the Gravitational Transducer.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

12 authors.

Siri Fløgstad SvenssonDepartment of Physics and Computational Radiology, Division of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6282-0341
Skarphéðinn HalldórssonVilhelm Magnus Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4337-9252
Anna LatyshevaDepartment of Radiology, Division of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Elies Fuster-GarciaDepartment of Physics and Computational Radiology, Division of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0716-8960
Trine HjørnevikDepartment of Physics and Computational Radiology, Division of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3280-7277
Jorunn Fraser-GreenThe Intervention Center, Division for Technology and Innovation, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Robin Anthony Birkeland BuggeDepartment of Physics and Computational Radiology, Division of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6184-6021
Jack GrinbandDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7658-6755
Sverre HolmDepartment of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2273-705X
Ralph SinkusDivision of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6093-1654
Einar Osland Vik-MoVilhelm Magnus Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8303-4123
Kyrre Eeg EmblemDepartment of Physics and Computational Radiology, Division of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6580-9519

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Biomechanical tissue properties of glioblastoma tumors are heterogeneous, but the molecular mechanisms involved and the biological implications are poorly understood. Here, we combine magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) measurement of tissue stiffness with RNA sequencing of tissue biopsies to explore the molecular characteristics of the stiffness signal. Methods: MRE was performed preoperatively in 13 patients with glioblastoma. Navigated biopsies were harvested during surgery and classified as "stiff" or "soft" according to MRE stiffness measurements (|G*| Results: The mean whole-tumor stiffness was lower than normal-appearing white matter. The surgeon's stiffness evaluation did not correlate with the MRE measurements, which suggests that these measures assess different physiological properties. Pathway analysis of the differentially expressed genes between "stiff" and "soft" biopsies showed that genes involved in extracellular matrix reorganization and cellular adhesion were overexpressed in "stiff" biopsies. Supervised dimensionality reduction identified a gene expression signal separating "stiff" and "soft" biopsies. Using the NIH Genomic Data Portal, 265 glioblastoma patients were divided into those with ( Conclusion: MRE imaging of glioblastoma can provide noninvasive information on intratumoral heterogeneity. Regions of increased stiffness were associated with extracellular matrix reorganization. An expression signal associated with "stiff" biopsies correlated with shorter survival of glioblastoma patients.

Indexed as

biomechanicselastographyextracellular matrixglioblastomastiffness

Identifiers

PMID37066109
PMCPMC10102831

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.