PURPOSE: Pathogenesis of ependymomas is still poorly understood and molecular markers for risk-adapted patient stratification are not available. Our aim was to screen for novel genomic imbalances and prognostic markers in ependymal tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We analyzed 68 sporadic tumors by matrix-based comparative genomic hybridization using DNA microarrays containing >6,400 genomic DNA fragments. Novel recurrent genomic gains were validated by fluorescence in situ hybridization using a tissue microarray consisting of 170 intracranial ependymomas. Candidate genes were also tested for mRNA expression by quantitative real-time PCR, and protein expression was determined by immunohistochemistry on the tissue microarray. RESULTS: Chromosomal gain of 1q correlated with pediatric patients (P = 0.004), intracranial ependymomas (P = 0.05), and tumors of grade III (P = 0.002). Gain of 1q21.1-32.1 was associated with tumor recurrence in intracranial ependymomas (P < 0.001). Furthermore, gain of 1q25 as determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization represented an independent prognostic marker for either recurrence-free survival (P < 0.001) or overall survival (P = 0.003). Recurrent gains at 5p15.33 covering hTERT were validated by immunohistochemistry, and elevated protein levels correlated with adverse prognosis (P = 0.01). In addition to frequent gains and high-level amplification of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) at 7p11.2, immunohistochemistry revealed protein overexpression to be correlated with poor prognosis (P = 0.002). EGFR protein status subdivides intracranial grade II ependymomas into two different risk groups (P = 0.03) as shown by multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, the states of 1q25 and EGFR represent independent prognostic markers for intracranial ependymomas to identify patient subgroups with different risk profiles in further clinical investigations. Moreover, EGFR might serve as therapeutic target for more specific chemotherapy applications.
PURPOSE: Pathogenesis of ependymomas is still poorly understood and molecular markers for risk-adapted patient stratification are not available. Our aim was to screen for novel genomic imbalances and prognostic markers in ependymal tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We analyzed 68 sporadic tumors by matrix-based comparative genomic hybridization using DNA microarrays containing >6,400 genomic DNA fragments. Novel recurrent genomic gains were validated by fluorescence in situ hybridization using a tissue microarray consisting of 170 intracranial ependymomas. Candidate genes were also tested for mRNA expression by quantitative real-time PCR, and protein expression was determined by immunohistochemistry on the tissue microarray. RESULTS: Chromosomal gain of 1q correlated with pediatric patients (P = 0.004), intracranial ependymomas (P = 0.05), and tumors of grade III (P = 0.002). Gain of 1q21.1-32.1 was associated with tumor recurrence in intracranial ependymomas (P < 0.001). Furthermore, gain of 1q25 as determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization represented an independent prognostic marker for either recurrence-free survival (P < 0.001) or overall survival (P = 0.003). Recurrent gains at 5p15.33 covering hTERT were validated by immunohistochemistry, and elevated protein levels correlated with adverse prognosis (P = 0.01). In addition to frequent gains and high-level amplification of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) at 7p11.2, immunohistochemistry revealed protein overexpression to be correlated with poor prognosis (P = 0.002). EGFR protein status subdivides intracranial grade II ependymomas into two different risk groups (P = 0.03) as shown by multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, the states of 1q25 and EGFR represent independent prognostic markers for intracranial ependymomas to identify patient subgroups with different risk profiles in further clinical investigations. Moreover, EGFR might serve as therapeutic target for more specific chemotherapy applications.
Authors: Barbara S Paugh; Chunxu Qu; Chris Jones; Zhaoli Liu; Martyna Adamowicz-Brice; Junyuan Zhang; Dorine A Bax; Beth Coyle; Jennifer Barrow; Darren Hargrave; James Lowe; Amar Gajjar; Wei Zhao; Alberto Broniscer; David W Ellison; Richard G Grundy; Suzanne J Baker Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Vladimir Amani; Andrew M Donson; Seth C Lummus; Eric W Prince; Andrea M Griesinger; Davis A Witt; Todd C Hankinson; Michael H Handler; Kathleen Dorris; Rajeev Vibhakar; Nicholas K Foreman; Lindsey M Hoffman Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Kristian W Pajtler; Ji Wen; Martin Sill; Tong Lin; Wilda Orisme; Bo Tang; Jens-Martin Hübner; Vijay Ramaswamy; Sujuan Jia; James D Dalton; Kelly Haupfear; Hazel A Rogers; Chandanamali Punchihewa; Ryan Lee; John Easton; Gang Wu; Timothy A Ritzmann; Rebecca Chapman; Lukas Chavez; Fredrick A Boop; Paul Klimo; Noah D Sabin; Robert Ogg; Stephen C Mack; Brian D Freibaum; Hong Joo Kim; Hendrik Witt; David T W Jones; Baohan Vo; Amar Gajjar; Stan Pounds; Arzu Onar-Thomas; Martine F Roussel; Jinghui Zhang; J Paul Taylor; Thomas E Merchant; Richard Grundy; Ruth G Tatevossian; Michael D Taylor; Stefan M Pfister; Andrey Korshunov; Marcel Kool; David W Ellison Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2018-06-16 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Derek S Tsang; Louise Murray; Vijay Ramaswamy; Michal Zapotocky; Uri Tabori; Ute Bartels; Annie Huang; Peter B Dirks; Michael D Taylor; Cynthia Hawkins; Eric Bouffet; Normand Laperriere Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 12.300