A Re-visit of Glioblastoma Molecular Subtypes Utilizing the 2021 WHO Classification of CNS Tumors Framework

Clicks: 15
ID: 329438
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #111 of 144 articles by views in Neuro-Oncology Advances

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 144 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background The three-subtype transcriptional framework is an established approach for classifying glioblastoma (GBM). The 2021 World Health Organization (WHO) Classification re-defined GBM as an IDH-wildtype (IDH-WT) tumor. We evaluated the three-subtype framework in context of the new diagnostic criteria of WHO-2021 Classification which defined GBM to be IDH-WT only, to establish subtype concordance, cross-platform reproducibility, and subtype-associated molecular characteristics. Methodology TCGA RNA-seq (n = 233) and Affymetrix HGU133A (n = 330) cohorts fulfilling WHO-2021 criteria for IDH-WT GBMs were classified using the published 500-gene classifier. Concordance with legacy TCGA four-subtype assignments, cross-platform reproducibility, overall survival and subtype-specific molecular characteristics were evaluated. Results Among WHO-2021-defined GBMs, the three-subtype framework demonstrated good concordance with legacy TCGA four-subtype assignments (79.7%, Cohen's κ = 0.69) and cross-platform reproducibility between RNA-seq and Affymetrix platforms (81.6%; κ = 0.72). Legacy proneural (PN; 96.2%) and neural (NE; 70.6%) tumors predominantly mapped to the PN/NE subtype, whereas mesenchymal (MES) tumors largely retained their original subtype assignment (95.4%). The Classical (CL) subtype showed the lowest concordance with its original TCGA subtype assignment (59.4%), with frequent subtype-switching towards PN/NE and MES subtypes while retaining canonical molecular characteristics, including EGFR amplification and CDKN2A/CDKN2B homozygous deletion. MES subtype remained enriched for NF1 alterations in the Affymetrix HGU133A cohort. Overall survival did not differ between three-subtypes among WHO-2021-defined GBMs. Conclusion This study provides an updated evaluation of the three-subtype framework within WHO-2021-defined IDH-WT GBM. Based on WHO-2021 criteria, the framework preserved principal subtype assignment patterns, cross-platform reproducibility and established subtype-associated molecular characteristics.
Reference Key
openalex_W7214009370 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Geraldine Lee Wen She, M Tarek Elghetany, John Myseros, Seok‐Gu Kang, Xiaonan Li, Wan‐Yee Teo
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Neuro-Oncology Advances
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/noajnl/vdag247
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdag247
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.