Sex-Specific Differences in Patients with IDH1–Wild-Type Grade 4 Glioma in the ReSPOND Consortium

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Thakkar JP,
   2. Dolecek TA,
   3. Horbinski C, et al

   . Epidemiologic and molecular prognostic review of glioblastoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:1985–96 doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0275 pmid:25053711

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   1. Yang W,
   2. Warrington NM,
   3. Taylor SJ, et al

   . Sex differences in GBM revealed by analysis of patient imaging, transcriptome, and survival data. Sci Transl Med 2019;11:eaao5253 doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aao5253

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Ostrom QT,
   2. Price M,
   3. Neff C, et al

   . CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2015–2019. Neuro Oncol 2022;24:v1–95 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noac202 pmid:36196752

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Gittleman H,
   2. Ostrom QT,
   3. Stetson LC, et al

   . Sex is an important prognostic factor for glioblastoma but not for nonglioblastoma. Neurooncol Pract 2019;6:451–62 doi:10.1093/nop/npz019 pmid:31832215

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Tavelin B,
   2. Malmström A

   . Sex differences in glioblastoma—Findings from the Swedish National Quality Registry for Primary Brain Tumors between 1999–2018. J Clin Med 2022;11:486 doi:10.3390/jcm11030486

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Ostrom QT,
   2. Rubin JB,
   3. Lathia JD, et al

   . Females have the survival advantage in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 2018;20:576–77 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noy002 pmid:29474647

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Whitmire P,
   2. Rickertsen CR,
   3. Hawkins-Daarud A, et al

   . Sex-specific impact of patterns of imageable tumor growth on survival of primary glioblastoma patients. BMC Cancer 2020;20:447 doi:10.1186/s12885-020-06816-2 pmid:32429869

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Louis DN,
   2. Perry A,
   3. Wesseling P, et al

   . The 2021 WHO classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Neuro Oncol 2021;23:1231–51 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noab106 pmid:34185076

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Hallaert G,
   2. Pinson H,
   3. Van den Broecke C, et al

   . Sex-based survival differences in IDH-wildtype glioblastoma: Results from a retrospective cohort study. J Clin Neurosci 2021;91:209–13 doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2021.07.008 pmid:34373029

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Hertler C,
    2. Felsberg J,
    3. Gramatzki D, et al

    . Long-term survival with IDH wildtype glioblastoma: first results from the ETERNITY Brain Tumor Funders’ Collaborative Consortium (EORTC 1419). Eur J Cancer 2023;189:112913 doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2023.05.002 pmid:37277265

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Bilello M,
    2. Akbari H,
    3. Da X, et al

    . Population-based MRI atlases of spatial distribution are specific to patient and tumor characteristics in glioblastoma. Neuroimage Clin 2016;12:34–40 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2016.03.007 pmid:27358767

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Colen RR,
    2. Wang J,
    3. Singh SK, et al

    . Glioblastoma: imaging genomic mapping reveals sex-specific oncogenic associations of cell death. Radiology 2015;275:215–27 doi:10.1148/radiol.14141800 pmid:25490189

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Beig N,
    2. Singh S,
    3. Bera K, et al

    . Sexually dimorphic radiogenomic models identify distinct imaging and biological pathways that are prognostic of overall survival in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 2021;23:251–63 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaa231 pmid:33068415

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Diaz Rosario M,
    2. Kaur H,
    3. Tasci E, et al

    . The next frontier in health disparities—a closer look at exploring sex differences in glioma data and omics analysis, from bench to bedside and back. Biomolecules 2022;12:1203 doi:10.3390/biom12091203

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Xu H,
    2. Chen J,
    3. Xu H, et al

    . Geographic variations in the incidence of glioblastoma and prognostic factors predictive of overall survival in US adults from 2004-2013. Front Aging Neurosci 2017;9:352 doi:10.3389/fnagi.2017.00352 pmid:29163134

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Girardi F,
    2. Matz M,
    3. Stiller C

    ; CONCORD Working Group, et al. Global survival trends for brain tumors, by histology: analysis of individual records for 556,237 adults diagnosed in 59 countries during 2000–2014 (CONCORD-3). Neuro Oncol 2023;25:580–92 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noac217 pmid:36355361

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Davatzikos C,
    2. Barnholtz-Sloan JS,
    3. Bakas S, et al

    . AI-based prognostic imaging biomarkers for precision neuro-oncology: the ReSPOND consortium. Neuro Oncol 2020;22:886–88 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaa045 pmid:32152622

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Bakas S,
    2. Reyes M,
    3. Jakab A, et al

    . Identifying the best machine learning algorithms for brain tumor segmentation, progression assessment, and overall survival prediction in the BRATS Challenge. Published online November 5, 2018. http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.02629
19. 19.↵
    1. Bakas S,
    2. Akbari H,
    3. Sotiras A, et al

    . Advancing The Cancer Genome Atlas glioma MRI collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features. Sci Data 2017;4:170117 doi:10.1038/sdata.2017.117 pmid:28872634

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Thakur S,
    2. Doshi J,
    3. Pati S, et al

    . Brain extraction on MRI scans in presence of diffuse glioma: Multi-institutional performance evaluation of deep learning methods and robust modality-agnostic training. Neuroimage 2020;220:117081 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117081 pmid:32603860

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Davatzikos C,
    2. Rathore S,
    3. Bakas S, et al

    . Cancer imaging phenomics toolkit: quantitative imaging analytics for precision diagnostics and predictive modeling of clinical outcome. J Med Imag 2018;5:1 doi:10.1117/1.JMI.5.1.011018

    CrossRef
22. 22.↵
    1. Hayati Rezvan P,
    2. Lee KJ,
    3. Simpson JA

    . The rise of multiple imputation: A review of the reporting and implementation of the method in medical research data collection, quality, and reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol 2015;15:30 doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0022-1 pmid:25880850

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Azur MJ,
    2. Stuart EA,
    3. Frangakis C, et al

    . Multiple imputation by chained equations: what is it and how does it work? Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2011;20:40–49 doi:10.1002/mpr.329 pmid:21499542

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Lee JH,
    2. Huber JC, Jr.

    Evaluation of multiple imputation with large proportions of missing data: how much is too much? Iran J Public Health 2021;50:1372–80 doi:10.18502/ijph.v50i7.6626 pmid:34568175

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Lee J,
    2. Park SH,
    3. Kim YZ

    . Prognostic evaluation of neurological assessment of the neuro-oncology scale in glioblastoma patients. Brain Tumor Res Treat 2018;6:22–30 doi:10.14791/btrt.2018.6.e1 pmid:29644808

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Dunn J,
    2. Baborie A,
    3. Alam F, et al

    . Extent of MGMT promoter methylation correlates with outcome in glioblastomas given temozolomide and radiotherapy. Br J Cancer 2009;101:124–31 doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605127 pmid:19536096

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    1. Smits A,
    2. Lysiak M,
    3. Magnusson A, et al

    . Sex disparities in MGMT promoter methylation and survival in glioblastoma: further evidence from clinical cohorts. J Clin Med 2021;10:1–7 doi:10.3390/jcm10040556

    CrossRef
28. 28.↵
    1. Ostrom QT,
    2. Kinnersley B,
    3. Wrensch MR, et al

    . Sex-specific glioma genome-wide association study identifies new risk locus at 3p21.31 in females, and finds sex-differences in risk at 8q24.21. Sci Rep 2018;8:7352 doi:10.1038/s41598-018-24580-z pmid:29743610

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Ritchie SJ,
    2. Cox SR,
    3. Shen X, et al

    . Sex differences in the adult human brain: evidence from 5216 UK biobank participants. Cereb Cortex 2018;28:2959–75 doi:10.1093/cercor/bhy109 pmid:29771288

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. O'Brien LM,
    2. Ziegler DA,
    3. Deutsch CK, et al

    . Statistical adjustments for brain size in volumetric neuroimaging studies: some practical implications in methods. Psychiatry Res 2011;193:113–22 doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2011.01.007 pmid:21684724

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Kijonka M,
    2. Borys D,
    3. Psiuk-Maksymowicz K, et al

    . Whole brain and cranial size adjustments in volumetric brain analyses of sex- and age-related trends. Front Neurosci 2020;14:278 doi:10.3389/fnins.2020.00278 pmid:32317915

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. McMahon SB

    . MYC and the control of apoptosis. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 2014;4:a014407 doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a014407 pmid:24985130

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
33. 33.↵
    1. Tian M,
    2. Ma W,
    3. Chen Y, et al

    . Impact of gender on the survival of patients with glioblastoma. Biosci Rep 2018;38:BSR20180752 doi:10.1042/BSR20180752

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
34. 34.↵
    1. Li HY,
    2. Sun CR,
    3. He M, et al

    . Correlation between tumor location and clinical properties of glioblastomas in frontal and temporal lobes. World Neurosurg 2018;112:e407–14 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.055 pmid:29355809

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Hadi I,
    2. Reitz D,
    3. Bodensohn R, et al

    . Radiation necrosis after a combination of external beam radiotherapy and iodine-125 brachytherapy in gliomas. Radiat Oncol 2021;16:40 doi:10.1186/s13014-021-01762-0 pmid:33622365

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Brown NF,
    2. Ottaviani D,
    3. Tazare J, et al

    . Survival outcomes and prognostic factors in glioblastoma. Cancers (Basel) 2022;14:3161 doi:10.3390/cancers14133161

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Fathi Kazerooni A,
    2. Saxena S,
    3. Toorens E, et al

    . Clinical measures, radiomics, and genomics offer synergistic value in AI-based prediction of overall survival in patients with glioblastoma. Sci Rep 2022;12:8784 doi:10.1038/s41598-022-12699-z pmid:35610333

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Bjorland LS,
    2. Fluge O,
    3. Gilje B, et al

    . Treatment approach and survival from glioblastoma: Results from a population-based retrospective cohort study from Western Norway. BMJ Open 2021;11:e043208 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043208

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
39. 39.↵
    1. Karschnia P,
    2. Young JS,
    3. Dono A, et al

    . Prognostic validation of a new classification system for extent of resection in glioblastoma: a report of the RANO resect group. Neuro Oncol 2023;25:940–54 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noac193 pmid:35961053

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    1. Estevez-Ordonez D,
    2. Abdelrashid M,
    3. Coffee E, et al

    . Racial and socioeconomic disparities in glioblastoma outcomes: A single-center, retrospective cohort study. Cancer 2023;129:3010–22 doi:10.1002/cncr.34881 pmid:37246417

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Chambless LB,
    2. Kistka HM,
    3. Parker SL, et al

    . The relative value of postoperative versus preoperative Karnofsky Performance Scale scores as a predictor of survival after surgical resection of glioblastoma multiforme. J Neurooncol 2015;121:359–64 doi:10.1007/s11060-014-1640-x pmid:25344883

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    1. Grabowski MM,
    2. Recinos PF,
    3. Nowacki AS, et al

    . Residual tumor volume versus extent of resection: predictors of survival after surgery for glioblastoma. J Neurosurg 2014;121:1115–23 doi:10.3171/2014.7.JNS132449 pmid:25192475

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science