ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2024
Prognostic value of cerebrospinal fluid tumor cell count in leptomeningeal disease from solid tumors.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Liquid Biopsy in Primary CNS Tumors: Bridging Biology, Technology, and Clinical Care.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2026Review
- Demonstrating the clinical utility of genomic profiling using cerebrospinal fluid to inform management of central nervous system tumors - a meta analysis of the literature.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2025Review
- Longitudinal CSF Tumor Cell Enumeration and Mutational Analysis as a Driver for Leptomeningeal Disease Management.Cancers · 2025Article
- Detection of circulating hybrid cells and circulating tumor cells in cerebrospinal fluid for leptomeningeal metastasis diagnosis and therapeutic prediction.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTreatment decisions for leptomeningeal disease (LMD) rely on patient risk stratification, since clinicians lack objective prognostic tools. The introduction of rare cell capture technology for identification of cerebrospinal fluid tumor cells (CSF-TCs), such as CNSide assay, improved the sensitivity of LMD diagnosis, but prognostic value is unknown. This study assesses the prognostic value of CSF-TC density in patients with LMD from solid tumors.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed or previously treated LMD from a single institution who had CNSide assay testing for CSF-TCs from 2020 to 2023. Univariable and multivariable survival analyses were conducted with Cox proportional-hazards modeling. Maximally-selected rank statistics were used to determine an optimal cutpoint for CSF-TC density and survival.
resultsOf 31 patients, 29 had CSF-TCs detected on CNSide. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) CSF-TC density was 67.8 (4.7-639) TCs/mL. CSF cytology was positive in 16 of 29 patients with positive CNSide (CNSide diagnostic sensitivity = 93.5%, negative predictive value = 85.7%). Median (IQR) survival from time of CSF-TC detection was 176 (89-481) days. On univariable and multivariable analysis, CSF-TC density was significantly associated with survival. An optimal cutpoint for dichotomizing survival by CSF-TC density was 19.34 TCs/mL. The time-dependent sensitivity and specificity for survival using this stratification were 76% and 67% at 6 months and 65% and 67% at 1 year, respectively.
conclusionsCSF-TC density may carry prognostic value in patients with LMD from solid tumors. Integrating CSF-TC density into LMD patient risk-stratification may help guide treatment decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.