BACKGROUND: Oligodendroglial neoplasms have morphologic and genotypic heterogeneity. Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of 1p and/or 19q is associated with increased treatment responsiveness and overall survival. However, the pathogenesis of treatment-resistance is unknown. We sought to determine if tumour progression is due to a proliferating sub-population of tumour cells with intact 1p, or if recurrent tumours retain 1p/19q LOH. METHODS: 24 patients with oligodendroglial neoplasms, possessing biopsy samples taken at diagnosis and at progression, were identified. 53 tumour specimens were available for LOH analysis of 1p and 19q, using PCR amplification of multiple microsatellite markers. 40 were also tested for 9p and 10q. RESULTS: At diagnosis, the median age was 34 (24-66) years, 14 were male. 19 tumours were WHO Grade II, and 5 were high grade. The most common genomic status was 19q LOH (70%). 13 (54%) tumours were 1p LOH at diagnosis: of these, 12 were 19q LOH, and 1 was 19q uninformative. All 12 patients with 1p/19q LOH primary tumours had persistent co-deletion at progression. 9 (38%) tumours were 1p intact at diagnosis, and 8 remained 1p intact in the progressed tumours. There was little heterogeneity of 9p and 10q between tumours at diagnosis and progression. CONCLUSION: 100% of oligodendroglial tumours with 1p/19q LOH, demonstrated persistent 1p/19q LOH in the progressed tumour. Therefore, progression of these tumours is not due to a proliferating sub-population of treatment-resistant, 1p intact tumour cells. We propose that additional mutations contribute to this aggressive phenotype, however, 9p LOH or 10q LOH are unlikely to be involved.
BACKGROUND:Oligodendroglial neoplasms have morphologic and genotypic heterogeneity. Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of 1p and/or 19q is associated with increased treatment responsiveness and overall survival. However, the pathogenesis of treatment-resistance is unknown. We sought to determine if tumour progression is due to a proliferating sub-population of tumour cells with intact 1p, or if recurrent tumours retain 1p/19q LOH. METHODS: 24 patients with oligodendroglial neoplasms, possessing biopsy samples taken at diagnosis and at progression, were identified. 53 tumour specimens were available for LOH analysis of 1p and 19q, using PCR amplification of multiple microsatellite markers. 40 were also tested for 9p and 10q. RESULTS: At diagnosis, the median age was 34 (24-66) years, 14 were male. 19 tumours were WHO Grade II, and 5 were high grade. The most common genomic status was 19q LOH (70%). 13 (54%) tumours were 1p LOH at diagnosis: of these, 12 were 19q LOH, and 1 was 19q uninformative. All 12 patients with 1p/19q LOH primary tumours had persistent co-deletion at progression. 9 (38%) tumours were 1p intact at diagnosis, and 8 remained 1p intact in the progressed tumours. There was little heterogeneity of 9p and 10q between tumours at diagnosis and progression. CONCLUSION: 100% of oligodendroglial tumours with 1p/19q LOH, demonstrated persistent 1p/19q LOH in the progressed tumour. Therefore, progression of these tumours is not due to a proliferating sub-population of treatment-resistant, 1p intact tumour cells. We propose that additional mutations contribute to this aggressive phenotype, however, 9p LOH or 10q LOH are unlikely to be involved.
Authors: G S Bauman; Y Ino; K Ueki; M C Zlatescu; B J Fisher; D R Macdonald; L Stitt; D N Louis; J G Cairncross Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Robert B Jenkins; Hilary Blair; Karla V Ballman; Caterina Giannini; Robert M Arusell; Mark Law; Heather Flynn; Sandra Passe; Sara Felten; Paul D Brown; Edward G Shaw; Jan C Buckner Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-10-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: K Hoang-Xuan; J He; S Huguet; K Mokhtari; Y Marie; M Kujas; P Leuraud; L Capelle; J Y Delattre; J Poirier; P Broët; M Sanson Journal: Neurology Date: 2001-10-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Iris Lavon; Daniel Zrihan; Bracha Zelikovitch; Yakov Fellig; Dana Fuchs; Dov Soffer; Tali Siegal Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Judith W M Jeuken; Sandra H E Sprenger; Harry Vermeer; Arnoud C Kappelle; Rudolf H Boerman; Pieter Wesseling Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: K Hoang-Xuan; L Capelle; M Kujas; S Taillibert; H Duffau; J Lejeune; M Polivka; E Crinière; Y Marie; K Mokhtari; A F Carpentier; F Laigle; J M Simon; P Cornu; P Broët; M Sanson; J Y Delattre Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kenneth B Fallon; Cheryl A Palmer; Kevin A Roth; L Burton Nabors; Wenquan Wang; Mark Carpenter; Ruma Banerjee; Peter Forsyth; Keith Rich; Arie Perry Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: J G Cairncross; K Ueki; M C Zlatescu; D K Lisle; D M Finkelstein; R R Hammond; J S Silver; P C Stark; D R Macdonald; Y Ino; D A Ramsay; D N Louis Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1998-10-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David W Nauen; Andrew Guajardo; Lisa Haley; Kerry Powell; Peter C Burger; Christopher D Gocke Journal: Converg Sci Phys Oncol Date: 2015-06-16