Abstract
Background Analytic approaches to clinical validation of results from preclinical models are important in assessment of their relevance to human disease. This systematic review examined consistency in reporting of glioblastoma cohorts from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and assessed whether studies included patient characteristics in their survival analyses.
Methods We searched Embase and Medline on 02Feb21 for studies using preclinical models of glioblastoma published after Jan2008 that used data from TCGA to validate the association between at least one molecular marker and overall survival in adult patients with glioblastoma. Main data items included cohort characteristics, statistical significance of the survival analysis, and model covariates.
Results There were 58 eligible studies from 1,751 non-duplicate records investigating 126 individual molecular markers. In 14 studies published between 2017 and 2020 using TCGA RNA microarray data that should have the same cohort, the median number of patients was 464.5 (interquartile range 220.5-525). Of the 15 molecular markers that underwent more than one univariable or multivariable survival analyses, five had discrepancies between studies. Covariates used in the 17 studies that used multivariable survival analyses were age (76.5%), pre-operative functional status (35.3%), sex (29.4%) MGMT promoter methylation (29.4%), radiotherapy (23.5%), chemotherapy (17.6%), IDH mutation (17.6%) and extent of resection (5.9%).
Conclusions Preclinical glioblastoma studies that used TCGA for validation did not provide sufficient information about their cohort selection and there were inconsistent results.Transparency in reporting and the use of analytic approaches that adjust for clinical variables can improve the reproducibility between studies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
MTCP is funded by Cancer Research UK Brain Tumour Centre of Excellence Award (C157/A27589)
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This is a systematic review therefore does not require IRB approval.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Co-first authors listed in alphabetical order
Declarations
Funding Michael TC Poon is supported by Cancer Research UK Brain Tumour Centre of Excellence Award (C157/A27589).
Conflicts of interest Authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data availability All data are available in the original publications of the included study in this systematic review
Ethical approval This systematic review did not require ethical approval.
Edits made to last paragraph of introduction. No change of data or other sections.
Data Availability
All data are publicly available through the cited papers and our supplementary materials.
