Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37444483›Full record

ReviewCancers2023

Post-Surgical Prognosis of Patients with Pineoblastoma: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Analysis with Trends over Time.

Khizar R Nandoliya, Nishanth S Sadagopan, Vineeth Thirunavu, Ethan J Houskamp, Constantine L Karras, Rahul K Chaliparambil, Nikhil Sriram, Pouya Jamshidi, David R Raleigh, Rimas V Lukas and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The emerging role of intraoperative nanopore sequencing on the neurosurgical strategy in paediatric embryonal brain tumours.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Pineal Gland Parenchyma Tumors.Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Khizar R NandoliyaDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Malnati Brain Tumor Institute, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6616-4388
Nishanth S SadagopanDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Malnati Brain Tumor Institute, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
Vineeth ThirunavuDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Malnati Brain Tumor Institute, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
Ethan J HouskampDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Malnati Brain Tumor Institute, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
Constantine L KarrasDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Malnati Brain Tumor Institute, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
Rahul K ChaliparambilDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Malnati Brain Tumor Institute, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4345-5393
Nikhil SriramDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Malnati Brain Tumor Institute, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-8396-3063
Pouya JamshidiDepartment of Pathology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
David R RaleighDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.
Rimas V LukasDepartment of Neurology, Malnati Brain Tumor Institute, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
Stephen T MagillDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Malnati Brain Tumor Institute, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5257-7835
Northwestern University · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most of the literature on pineoblastoma consists of case reports and single-institution series. The goal of this systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) analysis was to summarize the existing literature, identify factors associated with overall survival (OS), and provide a contemporary update on prognosis for patients with pineoblastoma. Forty-four studies were identified with 298 patients having IPD. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to report survival outcomes based on age, tumor metastases, extent of resection (EOR), adjuvant therapy, and publication year. Cox regression was performed to identify independent predictors of time to mortality. Multivariable recursive partitioning analysis was used to identify the most important subgroups associated with mortality. Patients were classified based on publication year before and after the last systematic review on this topic (pre-2012 and 2012 onwards) and compared using univariate and multivariable analyses. This study demonstrates that EOR less-than-gross total resection, metastatic presentation, adjuvant chemotherapy without radiation, and tumor presentation in children less than three years old are associated with poorer prognosis. Since 2012, the 5-year actuarial OS has improved from 32.8% to 56.1%, which remained significant even after accounting for EOR, age, and adjuvant therapy. Pineoblastoma remains a severe rare disease, but survival outcomes are improving.

Indexed as

chemotherapypineoblastomaprognosisradiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID37444483
PMCPMC10340270
OpenAlexW4382402178

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.