ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2026
Molecularly diagnosed glioblastoma: clinical presentation and outcomes.
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. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 2021 WHO classification permits diagnosis of glioblastoma in IDH-wildtype diffuse astrocytic tumors with TERT promoter mutation, EGFR amplification, or chromosome 7 gain/10 loss, even without necrosis or microvascular proliferation. The clinical behavior of these molecularly defined glioblastomas (molGBM) remains uncertain.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients with molGBM treated at Hannover Medical School between 2017 and 2024. A contemporaneous histologically defined glioblastoma cohort (hisGBM) served as a control group in an approximately 1:3 ratio. MolGBM were stratified by histological grade and additionally compared with IDH-mutant astrocytomas of corresponding grade. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, Cox regression, and propensity score matching.
resultsThirty-four patients with molGBM and 103 with hisGBM were included. Compared with hisGBM, molGBM patients were younger (p < 0.001), had higher Karnofsky Performance Status (p < 0.001), and more often presented with seizures (p = 0.006), whereas focal neurological deficits were more frequent in hisGBM. MolGBM showed less contrast enhancement (p < 0.001) and lower Ki-67 indices (p < 0.001). Median overall survival was longer in molGBM (539 vs. 374 days; p = 0.032), but tumor group was not independently associated with survival after adjustment for age and KPS (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.77-1.90; p = 0.411). In the matched cohort, overall survival did not differ significantly (517 vs. 468 days; p = 0.670). MolGBM had inferior survival to grade-corresponding IDH-mutant astrocytomas (p < 0.001).
conclusionsMolGBM shows a distinct clinical-radiological phenotype, while its apparent survival advantage over hisGBM is influenced by baseline clinical differences. 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.