Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2021 Mar 31;3(1):vdab050. doi: 10.1093/noajnl/vdab050

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press, the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PMC Copyright notice

Figure 2. — Kaplan–Meier progression-free survival and overall survival of the different molecular subgroups of glioblastoma IDH-WT. (A and B) It demonstrates that RB1-mutant patients had the best PFS and OS, KDR/RB1-WT patients had an intermediate PFS and OS, and KDR-amplified patients had the worse PFS and OS in the UTHealth cohort (n = 282). (C and D) It demonstrates that RB1-mutant patients had the best PFS and OS, KDR/RB1-WT patients had an intermediate PFS and OS, and KDR-amplified patients had the worse PFS and OS in the MSK-IMPACT cohort (n = 291 – PFS* and n = 551 – OS). PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; GBM, glioblastoma; WT, wildtype; mOS, median overall survival; mPFS, median progression-free survival; UTHealth, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston; MSK-IMPACT, Memorial Sloan Kettering. Patients who presented concomitant KDR amplification and RB1 alteration were categorized in the RB1 alteration group. *In the MSK-IMPACT, only 291 patients had PFS available information.