ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2025
Comparative analysis of pyrosequencing and next-generation sequencing for assessing MGMT methylation in glioma patients.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- MGMT promoter methylation across glioma subtypes: biological relevance, treatment response, and survival outcomes.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
- Label-Free Raman Spectroscopy Reveals Metabolic Signatures Associated with MGMT Promoter Methylation Status in Glioblastoma.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Quantitative DNA melting analysis with hybridization probes (qDMA-HP) as a novel approach to assess MGMT promoter methylation in malignant glioma.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe methylation status of the O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) gene promoter is pivotal in clinical decision-making for glioma patients. Pyrosequencing (PSQ) has been regarded as the gold standard for determining the MGMT promoter status. Nevertheless, PSQ is limited by its low throughput, high costs, and intricate protocols. In this study, we present a comparative analysis of the performance of PSQ and next-generation sequencing (NGS) in evaluating MGMT methylation in glioma patients.
methodsInitially, we developed an amplicon-based NGS method for quantifying MGMT methylation. Subsequently, a comparative assessment was carried out to evaluate the MGMT promoter methylation levels in 50 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) glioma samples using both PSQ and NGS. Finally, a consistency analysis was performed to compare the results obtained from PSQ and NGS.
resultsThe results revealed a significant correlation between PSQ and NGS (R
conclusionsThis study indicates that, although PSQ is the gold standard, the quantitative detection of MGMT methylation by NGS is more accurate than that by PSQ. NGS is characterized by high throughput and cost-effectiveness, while also yielding accurate and stable results. Therefore, NGS provides a viable alternative to the PSQ method for detecting MGMT methylation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40138094What 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.