Overview of data-synthesis in systematic reviews of studies on outcome prediction models

Background: Many prognostic models have been developed. Different types of models, i.e. prognostic factor and outcome prediction studies, serve different purposes, which should be reflected in how the results are summarized in reviews. Therefore we set out to investigate how authors of reviews synthesize and report the results of primary outcome prediction studies. Methods: Outcome prediction reviews published in MEDLINE between October 2005 and March 2011 were eligible and 127 Systematic reviews with the aim to summarize outcome prediction studies written in English were identified for inclusion. Characteristics of the reviews and the primary studies that were included were independently assessed by 2 review authors, using standardized forms. Results: After consensus meetings a total of 50 systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria were included. The type of primary studies included (prognostic factor or outcome prediction) was unclear in two-thirds of the reviews. A minority of the reviews reported univariable or multivariable point estimates and measures of dispersion from the primary studies. Moreover, the variables considered for outcome prediction model development were often not reported, or were unclear. In most reviews there was no information about model performance. Quantitative analysis was performed in 10 reviews, and 49 reviews assessed the primary studies qualitatively. In both analyses types a range of different methods was used to present the results of the outcome prediction studies. Conclusions: Different methods are applied to synthesize primary study results but quantitative analysis is rarely performed. The description of its objectives and of the primary studies is suboptimal and performance parameters of the outcome prediction models are rarely mentioned. The poor reporting and the wide variety of data synthesis strategies are prone to influence the conclusions of outcome prediction reviews. Therefore, there is much room for improvement in reviews of outcome prediction studies. (aut.ref.

Proteogenomic and metabolomic characterization of human glioblastoma

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive nervous system cancer. Understanding its molecular pathogenesis is crucial to improving diagnosis and treatment. Integrated analysis of genomic, proteomic, post-translational modification and metabolomic data on 99 treatment-naive GBMs provides insights to GBM biology. We identify key phosphorylation events (e.g., phosphorylated PTPN11 and PLCG1) as potential switches mediating oncogenic pathway activation, as well as potential targets for EGFR-, TP53-, and RB1-altered tumors. Immune subtypes with distinct immune cell types are discovered using bulk omics methodologies, validated by snRNA-seq, and correlated with specific expression and histone acetylation patterns. Histone H2B acetylation in classical-like and immune-low GBM is driven largely by BRDs, CREBBP, and EP300. Integrated metabolomic and proteomic data identify specific lipid distributions across subtypes and distinct global metabolic changes in IDH-mutated tumors. This work highlights biological relationships that could contribute to stratification of GBM patients for more effective treatment