ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Concordance of fluorescence in situ hybridization, whole-exome sequencing, and chromosomal microarray for evaluating high-risk molecular features in meningiomas.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. 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: Meningiomas are the most common primary intracranial tumors, classified into three WHO grades based on histologic and/or molecular criteria. cIMPACT-NOW Update 8 underscores the increasing importance of molecular testing in grading and risk stratification, noting that morphologically WHO grade 1 tumors with concurrent 1p and 22q losses demonstrate clinical behavior comparable to WHO grade 2 meningiomas. This study aimed to assess the concordance of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), and whole-exome sequencing (WES) in defining the molecular risk profile of meningiomas. Methods: A total of 113 meningiomas were analyzed by WHO grade to assess the concordance of FISH and WES with CMA in detecting Results: FISH demonstrated a lower concordance with CMA compared to WES. Some discrepancies likely reflect inherent technical limitations of probe-based assays. Nonetheless, FISH remains widely used as a first-line method and in some settings the only available method-particularly in resource-limited environments such as low- and middle-income countries. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that FISH can provide clinically informative molecular risk assessment in select contexts where more comprehensive platforms are unavailable. However, due to discordance in detecting key copy number alterations, results should be interpreted cautiously. By contrast, CMA and WES offer more reliable alteration detection, making them the preferred platforms for precise molecular risk stratification and prognostication. Refining FISH probe design and establishing optimal thresholds for defining chromosomal arm losses may mitigate some discrepancies, although further validation is needed.
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.