Literature DB >> 18580490

Careful exclusion of non-neoplastic brain components is required for an appropriate evaluation of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase status in glioma: relationship between immunohistochemistry and methylation analysis.

Ken Sasai1, Miho Nodagashira, Hiroshi Nishihara, Eiko Aoyanagi, Lei Wang, Masahito Katoh, Junichi Murata, Yoshimaru Ozaki, Tamio Ito, Shin Fujimoto, Sadao Kaneko, Kazuo Nagashima, Shinya Tanaka.   

Abstract

Evaluation of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) expression is important for antiglioma therapy as many clinical trials have demonstrated that promoter hypermethylation and low level expression of MGMT are associated with an enhanced response to alkylating agents. However, here we report that the current strategies used to evaluate MGMT status in gliomas are unreliable. We observed discordance in the MGMT expression status when immunohistochemical evaluation and polymerase chain reaction-based methylation assessments were used: 73% of gliomas with methylated MGMT promoter had substantial numbers of MGMT-immunopositive tumor cells. Furthermore, when MGMT expression was tested in tumor homogenates using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, 43% of tumors were found positive, in comparison to only 24%, when histologic samples were assayed immunohistochemically. To explain these inconsistencies we undertook a detailed immunohistochemical evaluation of tumor samples and found that some gliomas demonstrated remarkably high expression of MGMT in the entire tumor whereas others contained only a small immunopositive area. Additionally, we found that gliomas contained various types of non-neoplastic cells expressing MGMT, including lymphocytes, vascular endothelial cells, and macrophages/microglias, which contribute to overall MGMT expression detected in tumor homogenates, and thus result in overestimation of tumor MGMT expression. Therefore, to correctly establish MGMT expression in the tumor, which could be informative of glioma sensitivity to alkylating agents, exclusion of non-neoplastic brain components from analysis is required.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18580490     DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318164c3f0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  20 in total

1.  Continuous low-dose temozolomide and celecoxib in recurrent glioblastoma.

Authors:  Florian Stockhammer; Martin Misch; Arend Koch; Marcus Czabanka; Michail Plotkin; Cristiane Blechschmidt; Jochen Tuettenberg; Peter Vajkoczy
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2010-05-06       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 2.  MGMT testing allows for personalised therapy in the temozolomide era.

Authors:  A Dullea; L Marignol
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2015-10-30

3.  Novel approaches for quantifying protein biomarkers in gliomas: benefits and pitfalls.

Authors:  Rikke H Dahlrot; Mia D Sørensen; Ann Mari Rosager; Sofie Hellwege; Julie A Bangsø; Tine Rosenberg; Stine A Petterson; Jacob Klitkou; Sigurd Fosmark; Steinbjørn Hansen; Bjarne W Kristensen
Journal:  CNS Oncol       Date:  2014-07

Review 4.  O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase in glioma therapy: promise and problems.

Authors:  John R Silber; Michael S Bobola; A Blank; Marc C Chamberlain
Journal:  Biochim Biophys Acta       Date:  2012-01-08

5.  O⁶-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase promoter methylation assessment by microdissection-assisted methylation-specific PCR and high resolution melting analysis in patients with glioblastomas.

Authors:  Seung-Ho Yang; Keun Soo Lee; Hea Jung Yang; Byeong Hwan Jeon; Youn Soo Lee; Suk Woo Nam; Dong-Sup Chung; Sang Won Lee; Yong-Kil Hong
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 4.130

6.  Combined analysis of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase protein expression and promoter methylation provides optimized prognostication of glioblastoma outcome.

Authors:  Shadi Lalezari; Arthur P Chou; Anh Tran; Orestes E Solis; Negar Khanlou; Weidong Chen; Sichen Li; Jose A Carrillo; Reshmi Chowdhury; Julia Selfridge; Desiree E Sanchez; Ryan W Wilson; Mira Zurayk; Jonathan Lalezari; Jerry J Lou; Laurel Ormiston; Karen Ancheta; Robert Hanna; Paul Miller; David Piccioni; Benjamin M Ellingson; Colin Buchanan; Paul S Mischel; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Richard Green; He-Jing Wang; Whitney B Pope; Linda M Liau; Robert M Elashoff; Timothy F Cloughesy; William H Yong; Albert Lai
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 7.  MGMT testing for glioma in clinical laboratories: discordance with methylation analyses prevents the implementation of routine immunohistochemistry.

Authors:  Sofia Mason; Kerrie McDonald
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-09-18       Impact factor: 4.553

8.  A new prognostic scoring scale for patients with primary WHO grade III gliomas based on molecular predictors.

Authors:  Haihui Jiang; Xiaohui Ren; Wei Zhang; Jun Ma; Dali Sui; Zhongli Jiang; Xiangli Cui; Song Lin
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2012-12-27       Impact factor: 4.130

9.  O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase deficiency and response to temozolomide-based therapy in patients with neuroendocrine tumors.

Authors:  Matthew H Kulke; Jason L Hornick; Christine Frauenhoffer; Susanne Hooshmand; David P Ryan; Peter C Enzinger; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Jeffrey W Clark; Keith Stuart; Charles S Fuchs; Mark S Redston
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2009-01-01       Impact factor: 12.531

10.  Extent of MGMT promoter methylation correlates with outcome in glioblastomas given temozolomide and radiotherapy.

Authors:  J Dunn; A Baborie; F Alam; K Joyce; M Moxham; R Sibson; D Crooks; D Husband; A Shenoy; A Brodbelt; H Wong; T Liloglou; B Haylock; C Walker
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-06-16       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.