ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2026
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.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecularly diagnosed glioblastoma: clinical presentation and outcomes.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Report of treatment intensity and survival outcomes in older patients with glioblastoma diagnosed according to WHO CNS 5 classification.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSince the 2021 World Health Organisation (WHO) classification, glioblastoma could be diagnosed based on classical histological features (hGBM) or molecular criteria (mGBM). However, prior studies included patients who required reclassification as a mGBM, potentially biasing survival analyses. The Histo-Mol GBM collaborative performed an international multicentre retrospective real-world cohort study of glioblastoma patients diagnosed according to WHO CNS 5.
methodsWe identified consecutive patients diagnosed in 2021 with IDH wildtype glioblastoma according to WHO CNS 5. Clinicopathological, treatment, and survival data were collected and compared between mGBM and hGBM.
results1828 patients diagnosed with glioblastoma were included. 75 mGBM patients (8.4% of tested patients) were identified, with no difference in age (median 61 vs 64, p = 0.057), gender (p = 0.937), or proportion with performance status 0–1 (82.7% vs 68.3%, p = 0.052) compared to hGBM. mGBM patients had an extended interval from MRI to surgery (median 23 vs 14 days, p < 0.001) and more frequently underwent biopsy (69.3% vs 30.3%, p < 0.001), but equivalent proportions received oncological treatment (80.0% vs 78.7%, p = 0.784). Overall survival (OS) from surgery was not different (p = 0.063). However, OS from initial MRI, stratified by surgical extent, demonstrated improved OS for mGBM patients (hazard ratio (HR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43–0.73). Propensity score matching identified improved survival following resection (HR 0.48, 95% CI: 0.24–0.95; median OS: 26.0 versus 14.0 months, p = 0.031) but not biopsy (HR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.71–1.72).
conclusionIn this large real-world cohort, mGBMs had longer OS than hGBMs following resection with implications for prognostication and clinical decision making.
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.