% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Braczynski:148298,
      author       = {A. K. Braczynski and D. Capper$^*$ and D. T. W. Jones$^*$
                      and J. Schittenhelm and D. Stichel$^*$ and A. von
                      Deimling$^*$ and P. Harter$^*$ and M. Mittelbronn},
      title        = {{H}igh density {DNA} methylation array is a reliable
                      alternative for {PCR}-based analysis of the {MGMT} promoter
                      methylation status in glioblastoma.},
      journal      = {Pathology, research and practice},
      volume       = {216},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {0344-0338},
      address      = {München},
      publisher    = {Elsevier},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2019-02862},
      pages        = {152728},
      year         = {2020},
      note         = {Volume 216, Issue 1, January 2020, 152728},
      abstract     = {MGMT promoter methylation status is an important biomarker
                      predicting survival and response to chemotherapy in patients
                      suffering from glioblastoma. Since new diagnostic methods
                      such as methylome-based classification of brain tumors are
                      more and more frequently performed, we aimed at comparing
                      the suitability of calculating the MGMT promoter methylation
                      status in a quantitative manner from the methylome profiling
                      as compared to the classic gold standard assessment by
                      PCR.Our cohort consisted of 39 cases diagnosed as
                      'glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype' of which the MGMT promoter
                      methylation status was analyzed with both
                      methylation-specific PCR and high density DNA methylation
                      array using the STP-27 algorithm. Contradictory results were
                      validated by pyrosequencing.The inter-method reliability
                      reached $77\%$ (kappa-coefficient: 0.58) when also cases
                      with an inconclusive result in one or the other method were
                      taken into account. When only cases with conclusive results
                      in both methods were considered, a very high inter-method
                      reliability of $91\%$ (kappa-coefficient: 0.86) could be
                      achieved. For 'methylated' cases, no contradictory results
                      were obtained. For the remaining two cases with discrepant
                      results subsequent pyrosequencing analyses spoke in favor of
                      each previously applied method once.In addition to its
                      benefits for molecular subgrouping and copy number analysis
                      of brain tumors, DNA-methylation based classification is a
                      highly reliable tool for the assessment of MGMT promoter
                      methylation status in glioblastoma patients.},
      cin          = {DD01 / B360 / B300 / BE01},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)DD01-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)B360-20160331 /
                      I:(DE-He78)B300-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)BE01-20160331},
      pnm          = {312 - Functional and structural genomics (POF3-312)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-312},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:31784096},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.prp.2019.152728},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/148298},
}