Abstract
Glioblastoma (GBM) generates a varied immune response and understanding the immune microenvironment may lead to novel immunotherapy treatments modalities. The goal of this study was to evaluate the expression of immunologic markers of potential clinical significance in primary versus recurrent GBM and assess the relationship between these markers and molecular characteristics of GBM. Human GBM samples were evaluated and analyzed with immunohistochemistry for multiple immunobiologic markers (CD3, CD8, FoxP3, CD68, CD163, PD1, PDL1, CTLA4, CD70). Immunoreactivity was analyzed using Aperio software. Degree of strong positive immunoreactivity within the tumor was compared to patient and tumor characteristics including age, gender, MGMT promoter methylation status, and ATRX, p53, and IDH1 mutation status. Additionally, the TCGA database was used to perform similar analysis of these factors in GBM using RNA-seq by expectation–maximization. Using odds ratios, IDH1 mutated GBM had statistically significant decreased expression of CD163 and CD70 and a trend for decreased PD1, CTLA4, and Foxp3. ATRX-mutated GBMs exhibited statistically significant increased CD3 immunoreactivity, while those with p53 mutations were found to have significantly increased CTLA4 immunoreactivity. The odds of having strong CD8 and CD68 reactivity was significantly less in MGMT methylated tumors. No significant difference was identified in any immune marker between the primary and recurrent GBM, nor was a significant change in immunoreactivity identified among age intervals. TCGA analysis corroborated findings related to the differential immune profile of IDH1 mutant, p53 mutant, and MGMT unmethylated tumors. Immunobiologic markers have greater association with the molecular characteristics of the tumor than with primary/recurrent status or age.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Glioblastoma (GBM) is associated with a dismal prognosis despite aggressive measures with maximal safe resection, fractionated radiation and chemotherapy. Most importantly, many novel agents that have had promising results in pre-clinical and early human trials have failed in larger randomized phase III trials [1,2,3]. Part of these failures can be attributed to the remarkable heterogeneity within GBM tumors [4]. This heterogeneity results in a robust ability [5] for cancer cells to evade therapy through multiple redundant pathways that can be up-regulated to preserve growth and invasion in the face of targeted therapeutic disruption. This robustness of GBM continues to hamper the development of effective therapeutics for invasive glial tumors. The attempts to advance promising cancer immunotherapies in the treatment of GBM will undoubtedly face similar developmental challenges. Recently matured late stage immunotherapy trials in GBM that have failed to meet clinical study endpoints highlight these challenges [6,7,8].
Immunotherapeutic efforts are well underway with various approaches including cellular and peptide vaccines, T cell transfer or immune checkpoint blockade. The efficacy of these strategies will most likely be dependent on patient and tumor-related factors that will determine ability to mount an effective immune response against tumor cells that drive growth, invasion and resistance. Others have shown that tumor biology is associated with variable immune infiltrates when comparing GBM to other gliomas [9, 10]. As our understanding increases of molecular characterization of GBM, the interplay between tumor immune infiltrates and molecular markers is paramount.
Our group previously published that intra-tumoral T cell infiltrates were associated with survival outcomes in glioma patients [11]. To build on our previous work, the goal of this study was to evaluate the expression of immunologic markers of potential clinical significance in primary versus recurrent GBM and assess the relationship between these markers and clinically relevant molecular characteristics of GBM.
Methods
Human GBM pathologic specimen analysis
Thirty-eight primary and twelve cases of recurrent glioblastoma were collected from the Florida Center for Brain Tumor Research (FCBTR) for immunohistochemical analysis, including four paired primary and recurrent cases. IHC staining of paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissue blocks was performed using polymer method. Briefly, the sections were steamed for 30 min in antigen retrieval citra buffer (Biogenex, Freemont, CA) for antigen retrieval. The primary antibodies were monoclonal mouse anti-FOXP3 (14-4776; eBioscience), CD70 (CD27L, sc-365539, Santa Cruz), CTLA-4 (sc-376016, Santa Cruz), PD-L1 (ab58810, Abcam), PD1 (ab52587, Abcam), CD163 (cm353ak, Biocare). A board-certified neuropathologist evaluated each case utilizing Aperio software for analysis [11] (Fig. 1). Evaluation was limited to only tumor-rich areas in order to avoid nonspecific staining, such as that seen in regions of necrosis. Additionally, the software was calibrated to only recognize cells with strong positive immunoreactivity.
For each immune marker, the percentage of strongly positive cells over all nucleated cells was calculated for each case. Using these values, the overall average percentage of positive cells for all cases was calculated in addition to the averages for all primary and recurrent cases. Additionally, the percentage of macrophages (CD68 and CD163), CTLA4, CD8+ T cells, and FoxP3+ T cells was also calculated for each case and averaged. Reporting of PD1 values was an exception due to low overall staining. In this case, positivity was assigned a value from 0 to 3, with 0 representing no detectable immunoreactivity and 3 representing very strong immunoreactivity as previously described [11]. Averages were calculated similarly to the other immune markers.
Using odds ratios, patterns of immunoreactivity were compared between patient characteristics such as age and gender, as well as tumor characteristics including IDH1, ATRX, and p53 mutation status and MGMT promoter methylation status. The immunoreactivity patterns of the paired primary and recurrent cases were also compared to each other.
Statistical analysis
The proportion of cells that stained strongly positive for each of 9 markers was calculated and analyzed as a response variable. Initially, logistic regression was used to model the expected log-odds of strongly positive cell staining as a linear function of combinations of seven covariates of interest: primary versus recurrent tumor, age, gender, and presence/absence of ATRX, P53, IDH1, and MGMT. Fitted models demonstrated significant overdispersion of errors, so proportions were logit-transformed and modeled directly as continuous responses using linear regression. Graphical assessment of residual errors from these models appeared reasonably normal.
Because the MGMT status covariate had roughly 60% of values missing, two parallel analyses were carried out. One analysis considered all of the study sample observations and excluded MGMT from consideration as a potential predictor. The other analysis only included observations with non-missing MGMT status values. Best models with 4 or fewer covariates (MGMT excluded) or 2 or fewer covariates (MGMT included) in the model were determined for each marker among the family of all possible models using the small-sample Akaike Information Criterion (AICc). The predictors in these models were then used to adjust estimated odds ratios for each predictor of each marker. These odds ratios are summarized in tables that include 95% confidence intervals and p-values for a Wald test that the odds ratios differ from 1. Forest plots contrasting the 9 marker odds ratios for each predictor were also generated.
TCGA analysis
Primary (n = 146) and recurrent (n = 19) GBM patients mRNA gene expression data and clinical information were culled from TCGA GBM RNAseqv2 dataset (currently available in UCSC repository, https://genome-cancer.ucsc.edu/proj/site/hgHeatmap/). Patients’ IDH1, ATRX, TP53 gene mutation were derived from TCGA GBM gene-level non-silent somatic mutation (broad) dataset of UCSC repository. Patient’s MGMT promoter methylation prediction were based on supplementary table from Bady et al.’s publication [12]. Patients mRNA expression, survival outcomes, TCGA/WHO subtypes, gene mutation and MGMT promoter methylation data were mapped into one cohort by Subioplatform. This merged cohort was then bifurcated into mutation/wild-type or methylated/unmethylated groups, respectively. Normalized, log-transformed RNA-seq by expectation–maximization (RSEM) gene expression levels for each immune marker were analyzed using linear regression, in a manner similar to that used for strong cell staining responses from the FCBTR dataset. Differences between mutated and wild-type strata (IDH1, ATRX, p53) or between methylated and unmethylated strata (MGMT) were expressed as adjusted RSEM mean ratios and displayed using forest plots.
We used Cox proportional hazards regression [13] to assess the effect of TCGA immune marker gene expression on overall survival in GBM patients. For each immune marker, gene expression levels were treated as a continuous predictor. Patients were stratified by wild-type or mutated (IDH1, ATRX, p53) or by methylated or unmethylated forms for MGMT. In each immune marker model, we included the expression levels of the marker, a stratifying variable, and a term representing interaction between the marker and the stratifying variable. We used restricted cubic splines [13] to assess possible non-linearity in the association of immune markers with survival. We used our fitted Cox models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) along with 95% confidence intervals and Wald tests for the null hypothesis HR = 1. We estimated median survival for selected expression levels of each immune marker and used these estimates to generate expected median survival trend curves over the range of observed expression levels.
Results
Table 1 summarizes the demographic and percent of samples expressing ATRX, p53, IDH-1 and MGMT methylation status in the human GBM samples from the FCBTR. Overall, 61% of samples were from male patients and 18.4% of samples were IDH-1 mutated. About half of the samples had no ATRX, p53 or IDH-1 mutation (Table 2). The most common mutation patterns were isolated p53 mutation (12.5%), p53 and IDH-1 mutation (12.5%) and an isolated ATRX mutation (10.42%). The presence of these genetic mutations in primary and recurrent samples is shown in Table 3. No statistically significant differences in gender, ATRX mutation, p53 mutation, IDH-1 mutation or MGMT promoter methylation status were found between primary and recurrent GBM samples. The immune marker expression in primary and recurrent tumors is shown in Table 4. PD-L1, CD163 and CD68 had the highest percent positivity. Not surprisingly, recurrent GBM samples were more likely to be from younger patients. Otherwise, immune marker expression did not differ between primary and recurrent samples. No significant difference in the expression of immune cell markers was identified between primary and recurrent GBM, including markers for lymphocytes (CD3, CD8, FoxP3) and macrophages (CD68 and CD163) (Suppl Fig. 1). The lymphocyte and macrophage values between paired cases from the same patient (4 cases) demonstrated no significant differences. Differing age groups also did not correlate with differences in the immune profiles of GBMs (Suppl Fig. 2).
These samples were analyzed for mutation status and immune marker expression. The cases that were positive for IDH1 mutation showed significantly lower odds of expressing CD163 (macrophages) (p = 0.0464) and CD70 (on lymphocytes and tumor cells) (p = 0.0428), and also showed a trend of decreased expression of PD1, CTLA4 (immune checkpoints), and Foxp3 (regulatory T cells) (Fig. 2a). The TCGA RNA-sequencing analysis similarly demonstrated that IDH1 mutated tumors had significantly lower means ratios of CD163 (p = 0.0005), CD70 (p = 0.0094) as well as CD3 (T cells) (p = 0.0044), CD8 (cytotoxic T cells) (p = 0.0044), PDCD1 (gene for PD-1) (p = 0.0057) and CD274 (gene for PD-L1) (p = 0.0192) (Fig. 2b). ATRX-mutated GBM in the human GBM samples exhibited significantly increased odds of CD3 immunoreactivity (p = 0.0306) (Fig. 3a). These results were different in the TCGA analysis which demonstrated decreased means ratio of CD3 (p = 0.0043), CD8 (p = 0.0011), CD70 (p = 0.0060), CD163 (p = 0.0135), CD274 (gene for PD-L1) (p = 0.0229), and PDCD1 (gene for PD-1) (p = 0.0101) in ATRX mutated tumors (Fig. 3b). GBM with p53 mutations were found to have increased odds of expressing CTLA4 (p = 0.0225) (Fig. 4a). The TCGA data did not demonstrate statistically significant differences between p53 mutated or wildtype tumors (Fig. 4b). MGMT promoter methylated GBM cases were found to have significantly lower odds of expressing CD8 (p = 0.0489) and CD68 (p = 0.0192) than MGMT unmethylated tumors (Fig. 5a). The TCGA analysis showed that MGMT methylated tumors had less CTLA4 (p = 0.0207), CD70 (p = 0.0423) and PDCD1 (gene for PD-1) (p = 0.0044) with only a trend for decreased CD68 (Fig. 5b).
Using the TCGA database, mutation of ATRX, IDH1, and p53 correlated with molecular subtype of GBM (Fig. 6). ATRX or IDH1 mutated tumors were more likely to be proneural [14], p53 mutated tumors were either proneural or mesenchymal. MGMT promoter methylated tumors fell into all four molecular subtypes. Subsequently, the association of immune marker RNA expression with overall survival was analyzed. The factors that were found to be significant on IHC analysis were used to determine survival associations using the TCGA dataset. CD8 expression was significantly associated with survival in GBM. MGMT unmethylated tumors had decreased survival with very low or very high expression of CD8, while methylated GBM had increased survival with low CD8 expression (Fig. 7a, b). This finding will require further exploration. Other markers were associated with trends in survival but these did not reach statistical significance.
Discussion
In this study, we identified a significant correlation of immune marker expression with mutational profiles of GBM. However, immune marker expression between primary and recurrent GBM were not significantly different. The importance of molecular characteristics of GBM to predict outcome is reflected in the latest World Health Organization (WHO) classification of glioma. The 2016 WHO classification incorporates both histological and molecular characteristics of the tumor given the increasing evidence that molecular signatures predict tumor behavior [15, 16]. We have now found that these molecular signatures may also be important in immune mechanisms related to tumor control, growth, resistance and ultimately to how a tumor responds to immunotherapy.
Our data shows that IDH-1 mutated tumors which are known to have a better prognosis were less likely to express immune checkpoint receptors, monocyte markers and regulatory T cells (Treg) markers which are known to be immunosuppressive. Alternatively, ATRX positive tumors had discordant results with the IHC evaluation demonstrating an increase in CD3+ T cell infiltration, and the TCGA analysis demonstrating less CD3+ and CD8+ T cells. Tumors with p53 mutations were more likely to express immune checkpoint receptor CTLA4. We also found that MGMT unmethylated tumors had increased CD8+ T cell and macrophage infiltrates. Our data also demonstrate the only statistically significant effects on survival is the expression of CD8 in MGMT unmethylated and methylated tumors. Others have described improved survival in GBM patients who have more CD8 + T cell infiltrates [17]. Our data demonstrated that MGMT unmethylated tumors did not have improved survival with increased CD8 + expression. The other immune markers did not have significant association with survival based on gene expression analysis of the tumors by RNA sequencing. Additionally, the expression of immune markers measured by IHC within molecular subgroups of GBM differed from the transcriptional expression measured by TCGA. This discordance is most likely multi-factorial and related to the difference in measuring protein expression versus transcriptional expression, sensitivity of the assays employed for measuring quantitative differences, and the power of the studies driven by differences in sample size. However, both TCGA and IHC analyses demonstrated that immunologic differences within the tumor microenvironment are notable between molecular subtypes of GBM tumors and our studies demonstrate that molecular subtype rather than age of patient or primary versus recurrent disease is more important in driving immunologic heterogeneity. These studies suggest that molecular subtype of malignant gliomas should be incorporated in the analysis of response to immunotherapy and be considered in the development of novel immune therapeutics for this patient population.
Other groups have described association of markers of immune function with molecular characteristics of gliomas. In a study of 976 gliomas in the Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas and the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), investigators found a correlation between PD-L1 expression and mesenchymal subtype [18]. They also found these tumors were more likely to be infiltrated with T cells and macrophages compared to PD-L1 negative tumors. These data provide the rationale for potentially stratifying patients enrolled in immunotherapy trials to maximize benefit. This strategy could also avoid the likelihood of a negative trial, which has significantly limited advances in GBM therapeutic efforts. The definition of immune markers expression groups could also be used as a surrogate for molecular subtypes of glioma. Determining mesenchymal versus proneural subtypes require genomic-level analysis which can be costly, time-intensive and is not utilized clinically. Other groups have described using immunohistochemistry (IHC) methods as a surrogate biomarker of certain molecular subtypes of glioma [19]. Therefore, the methods we describe here have the potential to be used to subclassify gliomas based on immune infiltrates, and be used to determine which patients could benefit from certain immunotherapeutic options.
The limitations of this study are small sample size and a limited analysis of each sample of a tumor that is known for heterogeneity. Additionally, the PD-L1 immunostain does not have consensus for interpretation of positive versus negative. There were very few recurrent samples compared to primary tumor samples. Despite these limitations, this work demonstrates that the immune microenvironment of GBM is associated with molecular subtype, which may have implications for treatment.
Conclusion
Primary GBM and recurrent GBM samples demonstrated similar immune infiltrates. However certain genetic markers such as IDH1, p53, ATRX and MGMT methylation status correlated with immune infiltrates. These findings may have implications for immunotherapy moving forward.
References
Stupp R, Hegi ME, Gorlia T, Erridge SC, Perry J, Hong YK, Aldape KD, Lhermitte B, Pietsch T, Grujicic D, Steinbach JP, Wick W, Tarnawski R, Nam DH, Hau P, Weyerbrock A, Taphoorn MJ, Shen CC, Rao N, Thurzo L, Herrlinger U, Gupta T, Kortmann RD, Adamska K, McBain C, Brandes AA, Tonn JC, Schnell O, Wiegel T, Kim CY, Nabors LB, Reardon DA, van den Bent MJ, Hicking C, Markivskyy A, Picard M, Weller M (2014) Cilengitide combined with standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter (CENTRIC EORTC 26071–22072 study): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 15:1100–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70379-1
Chinot OL, Wick W, Mason W, Henriksson R, Saran F, Nishikawa R, Carpentier AF, Hoang-Xuan K, Kavan P, Cernea D, Brandes AA, Hilton M, Abrey L, Cloughesy T (2014) Bevacizumab plus radiotherapy-temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 370:709–722. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1308345
Weathers SP, Han X, Liu DD, Conrad CA, Gilbert MR, Loghin ME, O’Brien BJ, Penas-Prado M, Puduvalli VK, Tremont-Lukats I, Colen RR, Yung WK, de Groot JF (2016) A randomized phase II trial of standard dose bevacizumab versus low dose bevacizumab plus lomustine (CCNU) in adults with recurrent glioblastoma. J Neuro-Oncol 129:487–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-016-2195-9
Patel AP, Tirosh I, Trombetta JJ, Shalek AK, Gillespie SM, Wakimoto H, Cahill DP, Nahed BV, Curry WT, Martuza RL, Louis DN, Rozenblatt-Rosen O, Suva ML, Regev A, Bernstein BE (2014) Single-cell RNA-seq highlights intratumoral heterogeneity in primary glioblastoma. Science 344:1396–1401. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254257
Kitano H (2004) Cancer as a robust system: implications for anticancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 4:227–235. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1300
Inman S (2016) Rintega (Rindopepimut) misses survival endpoint in phase 3 glioblastoma trial. Cure Accessed 5 Dec 2017
Green J (2013) ImmunoCellular therapeutics phase II study demonstrates that glioblastoma patients live longer without disease progression when treated with ICT-107. Immunocellular therapeutics Ltd. http://investors.imuc.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=813442
Abernathy A (2017) Bristol-Myers Squibb announces results from checkmate—143, a phase 3 study of Opdivo (nivolumab) in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Bristol-Myers Squibb. https://news.bms.com/press-release/bmy/bristol-myers-squibb-announces-results-checkmate-143-phase-3-study-opdivo-nivoluma
Yang I, Han SJ, Sughrue ME, Tihan T, Parsa AT (2011) Immune cell infiltrate differences in pilocytic astrocytoma and glioblastoma: evidence of distinct immunological microenvironments that reflect tumor biology. J Neurosurg 115:505–511. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.4.jns101172
Hewedi IH, Radwan NA, Shash LS, Elserry TH (2013) Perspectives on the immunologic microenvironment of astrocytomas. Cancer Manag Res 5:293–299. https://doi.org/10.2147/cmar.s48942
Sayour EJ, McLendon P, McLendon R, De Leon G, Reynolds R, Kresak J, Sampson JH, Mitchell DA (2015) Increased proportion of FoxP3 + regulatory T cells in tumor infiltrating lymphocytes is associated with tumor recurrence and reduced survival in patients with glioblastoma. Cancer Immunol Immunother 64:419–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00262-014-1651-7
Bady P, Sciuscio D, Diserens AC, Bloch J, van den Bent MJ, Marosi C, Dietrich PY, Weller M, Mariani L, Heppner FL, McDonald DR, Lacombe D, Stupp R, Delorenzi M, Hegi ME (2012) MGMT methylation analysis of glioblastoma on the Infinium methylation BeadChip identifies two distinct CpG regions associated with gene silencing and outcome, yielding a prediction model for comparisons across datasets, tumor grades, and CIMP-status. Acta Neuropathol 124:547–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-012-1016-2
Harell FE (2015) Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic and ordinal regression, and survival analysis. Springer, New York
Verhaak RG, Hoadley KA, Purdom E, Wang V, Qi Y, Wilkerson MD, Miller CR, Ding L, Golub T, Mesirov JP, Alexe G, Lawrence M, O’Kelly M, Tamayo P, Weir BA, Gabriel S, Winckler W, Gupta S, Jakkula L, Feiler HS, Hodgson JG, James CD, Sarkaria JN, Brennan C, Kahn A, Spellman PT, Wilson RK, Speed TP, Gray JW, Meyerson M, Getz G, Perou CM, Hayes DN (2010) Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell 17:98–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2009.12.020
Louis DN, Perry A, Burger P, Ellison DW, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A, Aldape K, Brat D, Collins VP, Eberhart C, Figarella-Branger D, Fuller GN, Giangaspero F, Giannini C, Hawkins C, Kleihues P, Korshunov A, Kros JM, Beatriz Lopes M, Ng HK, Ohgaki H, Paulus W, Pietsch T, Rosenblum M, Rushing E, Soylemezoglu F, Wiestler O, Wesseling P (2014) International Society Of Neuropathology–Haarlem consensus guidelines for nervous system tumor classification and grading. Brain Pathol (Zurich Switzerland) 24:429–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/bpa.12171
Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A, Figarella-Branger D, Cavenee WK, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Kleihues P, Ellison DW (2016) The 2016 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 131:803–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1
Kmiecik J, Poli A, Brons NH, Waha A, Eide GE, Enger PO, Zimmer J, Chekenya M (2013) Elevated CD3+ and CD8+ tumor-infiltrating immune cells correlate with prolonged survival in glioblastoma patients despite integrated immunosuppressive mechanisms in the tumor microenvironment and at the systemic level. J Neuroimmunol 264:71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroim.2013.08.013
Wang Z, Zhang C, Liu X, Wang Z, Sun L, Li G, Liang J, Hu H, Liu Y, Zhang W, Jiang T (2016) Molecular and clinical characterization of PD-L1 expression at transcriptional level via 976 samples of brain glioma. Oncoimmunology 5:e1196310. https://doi.org/10.1080/2162402x.2016.1196310
Conroy S, Kruyt FA, Joseph JV, Balasubramaniyan V, Bhat KP, Wagemakers M, Enting RH, Walenkamp AM, den Dunnen WF (2014) Subclassification of newly diagnosed glioblastomas through an immunohistochemical approach. PLoS ONE 9:e115687. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115687
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Florida Center for Brain Tumor Research. We would like to acknowledge Barbara Frentzen for her work in obtaining samples for analysis through the FCBTR.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
11060_2017_2732_MOESM1_ESM.tif
Supplementary Figure 1. Effect of Recurrent versus Primary tumor status on immune marker expression. Circled odds ratio point estimates differ significantly from one at α=0.05 (TIF 190 KB)
11060_2017_2732_MOESM2_ESM.tif
Supplementary Figure 2. Change in Immune Marker Expression per 10-Year Age Increase. Circled odds ratio point estimates differ significantly from one at α=0.05 (TIF 192 KB)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rahman, M., Kresak, J., Yang, C. et al. Analysis of immunobiologic markers in primary and recurrent glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 137, 249–257 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-017-2732-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-017-2732-1