CONTEXT: Gliomas, particularly glioblastomas, are among the deadliest of human tumors. Gliomas emerge through the accumulation of recurrent chromosomal alterations, some of which target yet-to-be-discovered cancer genes. A persistent question concerns the biological basis for the coselection of these alterations during gliomagenesis. OBJECTIVES: To describe a network model of a cooperative genetic landscape in gliomas and to evaluate its clinical relevance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Multidimensional genomic profiles and clinical profiles of 501 patients with gliomas (45 tumors in an initial discovery set collected between 2001 and 2004 and 456 tumors in validation sets made public between 2006 and 2008) from multiple academic centers in the United States and The Cancer Genome Atlas Pilot Project (TCGA). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Identification of genes with coincident genetic alterations, correlated gene dosage and gene expression, and multiple functional interactions; association between those genes and patient survival. RESULTS: Gliomas select for a nonrandom genetic landscape-a consistent pattern of chromosomal alterations-that involves altered regions ("territories") on chromosomes 1p, 7, 8q, 9p, 10, 12q, 13q, 19q, 20, and 22q (false-discovery rate-corrected P<.05). A network model shows that these territories harbor genes with putative synergistic, tumor-promoting relationships. The coalteration of the most interactive of these genes in glioblastoma is associated with unfavorable patient survival. A multigene risk scoring model based on 7 landscape genes (POLD2, CYCS, MYC, AKR1C3, YME1L1, ANXA7, and PDCD4) is associated with the duration of overall survival in 189 glioblastoma samples from TCGA (global log-rank P = .02 comparing 3 survival curves for patients with 0-2, 3-4, and 5-7 dosage-altered genes). Groups of patients with 0 to 2 (low-risk group) and 5 to 7 (high-risk group) dosage-altered genes experienced 49.24 and 79.56 deaths per 100 person-years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-2.40; Cox regression model P = .02), respectively. These associations with survival are validated using gene expression data in 3 independent glioma studies, comprising 76 (global log-rank P = .003; 47.89 vs 15.13 deaths per 100 person-years for high risk vs low risk; Cox model HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.49-6.20; P = .002) and 70 (global log-rank P = .008; 83.43 vs 16.14 deaths per 100 person-years for high risk vs low risk; HR, 3.86; 95% CI, 1.59-9.35; P = .003) high-grade gliomas and 191 glioblastomas (global log-rank P = .002; 83.23 vs 34.16 deaths per 100 person-years for high risk vs low risk; HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.44-3.58; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The alteration of multiple networking genes by recurrent chromosomal aberrations in gliomas deregulates critical signaling pathways through multiple, cooperative mechanisms. These mutations, which are likely due to nonrandom selection of a distinct genetic landscape during gliomagenesis, are associated with patient prognosis.
CONTEXT: Gliomas, particularly glioblastomas, are among the deadliest of humantumors. Gliomas emerge through the accumulation of recurrent chromosomal alterations, some of which target yet-to-be-discovered cancer genes. A persistent question concerns the biological basis for the coselection of these alterations during gliomagenesis. OBJECTIVES: To describe a network model of a cooperative genetic landscape in gliomas and to evaluate its clinical relevance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Multidimensional genomic profiles and clinical profiles of 501 patients with gliomas (45 tumors in an initial discovery set collected between 2001 and 2004 and 456 tumors in validation sets made public between 2006 and 2008) from multiple academic centers in the United States and The Cancer Genome Atlas Pilot Project (TCGA). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Identification of genes with coincident genetic alterations, correlated gene dosage and gene expression, and multiple functional interactions; association between those genes and patient survival. RESULTS:Gliomas select for a nonrandom genetic landscape-a consistent pattern of chromosomal alterations-that involves altered regions ("territories") on chromosomes 1p, 7, 8q, 9p, 10, 12q, 13q, 19q, 20, and 22q (false-discovery rate-corrected P<.05). A network model shows that these territories harbor genes with putative synergistic, tumor-promoting relationships. The coalteration of the most interactive of these genes in glioblastoma is associated with unfavorable patient survival. A multigene risk scoring model based on 7 landscape genes (POLD2, CYCS, MYC, AKR1C3, YME1L1, ANXA7, and PDCD4) is associated with the duration of overall survival in 189 glioblastoma samples from TCGA (global log-rank P = .02 comparing 3 survival curves for patients with 0-2, 3-4, and 5-7 dosage-altered genes). Groups of patients with 0 to 2 (low-risk group) and 5 to 7 (high-risk group) dosage-altered genes experienced 49.24 and 79.56 deaths per 100 person-years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-2.40; Cox regression model P = .02), respectively. These associations with survival are validated using gene expression data in 3 independent glioma studies, comprising 76 (global log-rank P = .003; 47.89 vs 15.13 deaths per 100 person-years for high risk vs low risk; Cox model HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.49-6.20; P = .002) and 70 (global log-rank P = .008; 83.43 vs 16.14 deaths per 100 person-years for high risk vs low risk; HR, 3.86; 95% CI, 1.59-9.35; P = .003) high-grade gliomas and 191 glioblastomas (global log-rank P = .002; 83.23 vs 34.16 deaths per 100 person-years for high risk vs low risk; HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.44-3.58; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The alteration of multiple networking genes by recurrent chromosomal aberrations in gliomas deregulates critical signaling pathways through multiple, cooperative mechanisms. These mutations, which are likely due to nonrandom selection of a distinct genetic landscape during gliomagenesis, are associated with patient prognosis.
Authors: William A Freije; F Edmundo Castro-Vargas; Zixing Fang; Steve Horvath; Timothy Cloughesy; Linda M Liau; Paul S Mischel; Stanley F Nelson Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: M Matsushima-Nishiu; M Unoki; K Ono; T Tsunoda; T Minaguchi; H Kuramoto; M Nishida; T Satoh; T Tanaka; Y Nakamura Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-05-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Howard Colman; Li Zhang; Erik P Sulman; J Matthew McDonald; Nasrin Latif Shooshtari; Andreana Rivera; Sonya Popoff; Catherine L Nutt; David N Louis; J Gregory Cairncross; Mark R Gilbert; Heidi S Phillips; Minesh P Mehta; Arnab Chakravarti; Christopher E Pelloski; Krishna Bhat; Burt G Feuerstein; Robert B Jenkins; Ken Aldape Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2009-10-20 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Markus Bredel; Claudia Bredel; Dejan Juric; Griffith R Harsh; Hannes Vogel; Lawrence D Recht; Branimir I Sikic Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-05-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Koei Chin; Sandy DeVries; Jane Fridlyand; Paul T Spellman; Ritu Roydasgupta; Wen-Lin Kuo; Anna Lapuk; Richard M Neve; Zuwei Qian; Tom Ryder; Fanqing Chen; Heidi Feiler; Taku Tokuyasu; Chris Kingsley; Shanaz Dairkee; Zhenhang Meng; Karen Chew; Daniel Pinkel; Ajay Jain; Britt Marie Ljung; Laura Esserman; Donna G Albertson; Frederic M Waldman; Joe W Gray Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: M Srivastava; L Bubendorf; V Srikantan; L Fossom; L Nolan; M Glasman; X Leighton; W Fehrle; S Pittaluga; M Raffeld; P Koivisto; N Willi; T C Gasser; J Kononen; G Sauter; O P Kallioniemi; S Srivastava; H B Pollard Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-04-03 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: D Williams Parsons; Siân Jones; Xiaosong Zhang; Jimmy Cheng-Ho Lin; Rebecca J Leary; Philipp Angenendt; Parminder Mankoo; Hannah Carter; I-Mei Siu; Gary L Gallia; Alessandro Olivi; Roger McLendon; B Ahmed Rasheed; Stephen Keir; Tatiana Nikolskaya; Yuri Nikolsky; Dana A Busam; Hanna Tekleab; Luis A Diaz; James Hartigan; Doug R Smith; Robert L Strausberg; Suely Kazue Nagahashi Marie; Sueli Mieko Oba Shinjo; Hai Yan; Gregory J Riggins; Darell D Bigner; Rachel Karchin; Nick Papadopoulos; Giovanni Parmigiani; Bert Vogelstein; Victor E Velculescu; Kenneth W Kinzler Journal: Science Date: 2008-09-04 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Markus Bredel; Denise M Scholtens; Ajay K Yadav; Angel A Alvarez; Jaclyn J Renfrow; James P Chandler; Irene L Y Yu; Maria S Carro; Fangping Dai; Michael J Tagge; Roberto Ferrarese; Claudia Bredel; Heidi S Phillips; Paul J Lukac; Pierre A Robe; Astrid Weyerbrock; Hannes Vogel; Steven Dubner; Bret Mobley; Xiaolin He; Adrienne C Scheck; Branimir I Sikic; Kenneth D Aldape; Arnab Chakravarti; Griffith R Harsh Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christopher D Willey; Ashley N Gilbert; Joshua C Anderson; George Yancey Gillespie Journal: Semin Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 5.934
Authors: Maria Artesi; Jerome Kroonen; Markus Bredel; Minh Nguyen-Khac; Manuel Deprez; Laurent Schoysman; Christophe Poulet; Arnab Chakravarti; Hyunsoo Kim; Denise Scholtens; Tatjana Seute; Bernard Rogister; Vincent Bours; Pierre A Robe Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-08-25 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Rutger K Balvers; Anne Kleijn; Jenneke J Kloezeman; Pim J French; Andreas Kremer; Martin J van den Bent; Clemens M F Dirven; Sieger Leenstra; Martine L M Lamfers Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Ajay K Yadav; Jaclyn J Renfrow; Denise M Scholtens; Hehuang Xie; George E Duran; Claudia Bredel; Hannes Vogel; James P Chandler; Arnab Chakravarti; Pierre A Robe; Sunit Das; Adrienne C Scheck; John A Kessler; Marcelo B Soares; Branimir I Sikic; Griffith R Harsh; Markus Bredel Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-07-15 Impact factor: 56.272