T J M Hulsebos1, D Troost, S Leenstra. 1. Department of Human Genetics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. t.j.hulsebos@amc.uva.nl
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to their invasive growth, gliomas usually cannot be removed completely and almost always recur as same grade or higher grade malignancies. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there were differences in the accumulation of genetic changes between the two types of glioma recurrence. METHODS: We genetically characterised 14 cases of lower grade glioma with a same grade recurrence, 12 cases of glioblastoma recurrence, and 14 cases of lower grade glioma with a higher grade recurrence. We investigated LOH (loss of heterozygosity) at 1p36, 10p15, the PTEN region in 10q23, the DMBT1 region in 10q25, 19q13, 22q13, LOH and mutation of TP53, and EGFR amplification. RESULTS: Genetic heterogeneity in the primary tumour was inferred in 3 cases of lower grade glioma with a higher grade recurrence. The cases of lower grade glioma with a higher grade recurrence displayed increased genetic instability in the recurrence (mean of 2.0 additional genetic changes per case) compared to cases with a same lower grade recurrence or those with a glioblastoma recurrence (mean of 0.6 and 0.8 additional changes per case, respectively). Compared to unselected primary glioblastomas, the glioblastomas that recurred as an operable tumour had infrequent EGFR amplification (8% v 30-40% of cases). CONCLUSIONS: Gliomas recurring as higher grade lesions might be genetically heterogeneous and accumulate more genetic changes than gliomas recurring as same grade lesions (whether originally low or high grade). Primary glioblastomas from patients for which the recurrence is operated because of prognostically more favourable clinical indices have infrequent EGFR amplification.
BACKGROUND: Due to their invasive growth, gliomas usually cannot be removed completely and almost always recur as same grade or higher grade malignancies. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there were differences in the accumulation of genetic changes between the two types of glioma recurrence. METHODS: We genetically characterised 14 cases of lower grade glioma with a same grade recurrence, 12 cases of glioblastoma recurrence, and 14 cases of lower grade glioma with a higher grade recurrence. We investigated LOH (loss of heterozygosity) at 1p36, 10p15, the PTEN region in 10q23, the DMBT1 region in 10q25, 19q13, 22q13, LOH and mutation of TP53, and EGFR amplification. RESULTS: Genetic heterogeneity in the primary tumour was inferred in 3 cases of lower grade glioma with a higher grade recurrence. The cases of lower grade glioma with a higher grade recurrence displayed increased genetic instability in the recurrence (mean of 2.0 additional genetic changes per case) compared to cases with a same lower grade recurrence or those with a glioblastoma recurrence (mean of 0.6 and 0.8 additional changes per case, respectively). Compared to unselected primary glioblastomas, the glioblastomas that recurred as an operable tumour had infrequent EGFR amplification (8% v 30-40% of cases). CONCLUSIONS:Gliomas recurring as higher grade lesions might be genetically heterogeneous and accumulate more genetic changes than gliomas recurring as same grade lesions (whether originally low or high grade). Primary glioblastomas from patients for which the recurrence is operated because of prognostically more favourable clinical indices have infrequent EGFR amplification.
Authors: A N Jain; K Chin; A L Børresen-Dale; B K Erikstein; P Eynstein Lonning; R Kaaresen; J W Gray Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-07-03 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: A von Deimling; R Fimmers; M C Schmidt; B Bender; F Fassbender; J Nagel; R Jahnke; P Kaskel; E M Duerr; J Koopmann; D Maintz; S Steinbeck; W Wick; M Platten; D J Müller; R Przkora; A Waha; B Blümcke; R Wellenreuther; B Meyer-Puttlitz; O Schmidt; J Mollenhauer; A Poustka; A P Stangl; D Lenartz; K von Ammon Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: N Ishii; M Tada; M F Hamou; R C Janzer; K Meagher-Villemure; O D Wiestler; N Tribolet; E G Van Meir Journal: Oncogene Date: 1999-10-21 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Matthias C Schmidt; Sven Antweiler; Nina Urban; Wolf Mueller; A Kuklik; Birgit Meyer-Puttlitz; Otmar D Wiestler; David N Louis; Rolf Fimmers; Andreas von Deimling Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Peter Sminia; T Rianne Stoter; Paul van der Valk; Paula H M Elkhuizen; Thea M Tadema; Gitta K Kuipers; W Peter Vandertop; M Vincent M Lafleur; Ben J Slotman Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Emeline Gillet; Agusti Alentorn; Brahima Doukouré; Emeline Mundwiller; Hinke F van Thuijl; Hinke van Thuij; Jaap C Reijneveld; José Alfonso Meza Medina; Amélie Liou; Yannick Marie; Karima Mokhtari; Khê Hoang-Xuan; Marc Sanson; Jean-Yves Delattre; Ahmed Idbaih Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: S Spiegl-Kreinecker; C Pirker; C Marosi; J Buchroithner; J Pichler; R Silye; J Fischer; M Micksche; W Berger Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2007-03-06 Impact factor: 7.640