ArticleBMC cancer2025
Descriptive and molecular analysis of pineal parenchymal tumors with clinical correlation.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPineal parenchymal body tumors are rare central nervous system tumors with a variety of presentations ranging from well-differentiated low-grade tumors to undifferentiated highly aggressive tumors. Recent molecular classification has described this heterogeneity, particularly among pineoblastomas (PB) and pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation (PPTID).
methodsOur study analyzed 49 patients with pineal parenchymal tumors, including PBs (n = 39), papillary tumors of the pineal region (n = 5), PPTID (n = 2), pineocytoma (n = 1), and trilateral retinoblastoma (n = 2). Descriptive analysis of patients’ characteristics was done in percentages and numbers. Overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) analysis were evaluated in relation to age and metastatic status for PB cases. Molecular classification was performed using the EPIC methylation array and analyzed by Heidelberg Classifier on 20 cases, of which sixteen were histopathologically diagnosed as PB.
resultsAmong PBs, univariate analysis showed that age significantly impacted OS and EFS (p-value = 0.003 and 0.021, respectively), while metastatic status only impacted EFS (p-value = 0.032). In Multivariate analysis, only age was of significance on OS (p-value 0.028). The identified methylation groups were PB-miRNA-1 (n = 10), PB-RB1 (n = 1), retinoblastoma-MYCN activated (n = 1), PPTID KBTBD4-altered (n = 1), papillary tumor of the pineal region (n = 1), medulloblastoma (MB) WNT activated (n = 1), MB non-WNT/SHH (n = 1), CNS embryonal tumor with BRD4-LEUTX fusion (n = 1) and unclassified N/A (n = 3).
conclusionOur data identified age as a prognostic factor affecting survival among our PB cohort. We also highlighted the heterogeneity of pineal parenchymal body tumors, necessitating molecular classification for accurate diagnosis and for developing tailored treatment strategies. We demonstrate the feasibility of identifying new entities and MBs within pineal body tumors, thereby supporting the growing evidence that MBs originate in the pineal region. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.