ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2026
Impact of an evolving classification system on diffuse glioma repositories: experience from the Sydney brain tumour bank.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Lactoferrin and Nanotechnology: New Insights Into Glioblastoma Therapy.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBrain tumour classification is a rapidly evolving field, with diagnostic evaluation integrating the latest in molecular testing techniques. As data in brain tumour registries and repositories are collected in real time, neuro-oncology researchers face clear challenges when analysing tumour cohorts diagnosed according to differing standards over time. This study aims to evaluate the impact of an evolving tumour classification system on both our institutional registry and widely used multi-institutional repositories in glioma translational research.
methodsClinicopathological data, including molecular profiles, were obtained from the Sydney Brain Tumour Bank registry (1993-2025). We sourced available clinicopathological and molecular classification data from the Rembrandt and Gravendeel datasets, the Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas (CGGA) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). All cases were reclassified according to the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Central Nervous System (5th edition).
resultsBetween 37% and 100% of cases diagnosed prior to the 2016 WHO Classification (revised fourth edition) require additional molecular testing for accurate diagnosis and grading. In contrast, the majority of cases in datasets established after the 2016 Classification met the WHO 2021 Classification criteria (61% to 97%). Two cohorts that consistently failed to meet 2021 requirements over time were high-grade gliomas in patients under 55 years and histological grade 2/3 IDH-mutant gliomas.
conclusionAn evolving tumour classification system necessitates regular review and reclassification of brain tumour datasets to ensure that brain cancer research is accurate and equitable. The reclassified datasets are provided for use by neuro-oncology researchers worldwide.
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.