ArticleSurgical neurology international2025
Poor diagnostic value of isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 R132H immunohistochemistry for determination of isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 status in patients with glioblastoma.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) classification of central nervous system (CNS) tumors is a major advance toward improving the diagnosis of adult brain tumors. Despite the promise of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations as an important biomarker for glioblastoma, not all institutions have ready access to mutation detection polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods, and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequencing may be problematic in very small biopsies. However, a simultaneous evaluation of IDH1 status by DNA sequencing and immunohistochemistry (IHC) to determine the sensitivity and specificity of both methods, along with their predictive value, was unavailable. Methods: This retrospective study included 33 patients who underwent surgical resection or biopsy, January 2016-December 2019. The diagnosis of glioblastoma was established. Surgically resected tumor tissues were fixated in 10%-formaldehyde preserved in paraffin-embedded blocks. Glioblastoma was classified according to the 2021 WHO classification of CNS tumors. The enrolled patients were followed up to obtain the overall survival rate (median follow-up time, 30 months). Results: Thirty-three patients (14 male; 19 female), mean age of 44.74 ± 15.49 years. Eight had WHO Grade II, 2 with WHO Grade III, and 23 with WHO Grade IV. The sensitivity and specificity of IDH1 IHC were 81.82% ( Conclusion: IDH1 status evaluation is crucial to predicting the survival rate and important for guiding the treatment decision for patients with glioblastoma. Despite the lesser sensitivity and specificity of IHC in comparison to DNA sequencing in this study, larger prospective studies are needed to validate our preliminary finding.
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.