ArticleBrain tumor pathology2025
Analysis of clinical, histological, and genomic information of molecular glioblastoma in a Japanese glioma cohort.
Article in Brain tumor pathology, 2025. 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.
- Molecularly diagnosed glioblastoma: clinical presentation and outcomes.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Dual TERT promoter mutations in glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype: a case report with preclinical investigations.Brain tumor pathology · 2026Article
- Understanding the difference in symptoms and outcomes between glioblastoma patients diagnosed based on histological or molecular criteria: a retrospective cohort analysis from the Histo-Mol GBM collaborative.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Ki-67 and overall survival in patients with glioblastoma: A systematic prognostic review and meta-analysis.Neuro-oncology advancesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the 2021 WHO Central Nervous System tumor classification, the "Glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype" diagnosis changed markedly. In a Japanese cohort, we compared the clinical backgrounds and prognoses of molecular glioblastoma (mGBM) and conventional glioblastoma (histological glioblastoma, hGBM). We included 270 patients with glioblastoma treated at five institutions during 2011-2023. Driver gene analysis was performed using a brain tumor-specific custom gene panel to verify the association between molecular and clinical information. Patients with mGBM had better preoperative KPS, lower Ki-67, and lower removal rates than did those with hGBM. Overall survival was longer in patients with mGBM than in those with hGBM (1207 vs 599 days, p = 0.037). TP53 mutation (hazard ratio: 5.33, 95% confidence interval: 0.26-108.7, p = 0.012) and histological grade 3 (p = 0.051) were poor prognostic factors for mGBM. Patients with mGBM had better preoperative KPS, worse removal rates, lower Ki-67 labeling index, and better overall survival than did those with hGBM. In addition, the histological grade of mGBM is potentially useful for estimating prognosis. In the WHO CNS5 2021, glioblastoma patients remain a heterogeneous population, and prognostic stratification based on the patient's clinical background and molecular information is desirable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40189724What 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.