PURPOSE: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and aggressive type of glioma and has the poorest survival. However, a small percentage of patients with GBM survive well beyond the established median. Therefore, identifying the genetic variants that influence this small number of unusually long-term survivors may provide important insight into tumor biology and treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Among 590 patients with primary GBM, we evaluated associations of survival with the 100 top-ranking glioma susceptibility single nucleotide polymorphisms from our previous genome-wide association study using Cox regression models. We also compared differences in genetic variation between short-term survivors (STS; <or= 12 months) and long-term survivors (LTS; >or= 36 months), and explored classification and regression tree analysis for survival data. We tested results using two independent series totaling 543 GBMs. RESULTS: We identified LIG4 rs7325927 and BTBD2 rs11670188 as predictors of STS in GBM and CCDC26 rs10464870 and rs891835, HMGA2 rs1563834, and RTEL1 rs2297440 as predictors of LTS. Further survival tree analysis revealed that patients >or= 50 years old with LIG4 rs7325927 (V) had the worst survival (median survival time, 1.2 years) and exhibited the highest risk of death (hazard ratio, 17.53; 95% CI, 4.27 to 71.97) compared with younger patients with combined RTEL1 rs2297440 (V) and HMGA2 rs1563834 (V) genotypes (median survival time, 7.8 years). CONCLUSION: Polymorphisms in the LIG4, BTBD2, HMGA2, and RTEL1 genes, which are involved in the double-strand break repair pathway, are associated with GBM survival.
PURPOSE:Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and aggressive type of glioma and has the poorest survival. However, a small percentage of patients with GBM survive well beyond the established median. Therefore, identifying the genetic variants that influence this small number of unusually long-term survivors may provide important insight into tumor biology and treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Among 590 patients with primary GBM, we evaluated associations of survival with the 100 top-ranking glioma susceptibility single nucleotide polymorphisms from our previous genome-wide association study using Cox regression models. We also compared differences in genetic variation between short-term survivors (STS; <or= 12 months) and long-term survivors (LTS; >or= 36 months), and explored classification and regression tree analysis for survival data. We tested results using two independent series totaling 543 GBMs. RESULTS: We identified LIG4rs7325927 and BTBD2rs11670188 as predictors of STS in GBM and CCDC26rs10464870 and rs891835, HMGA2rs1563834, and RTEL1rs2297440 as predictors of LTS. Further survival tree analysis revealed that patients >or= 50 years old with LIG4rs7325927 (V) had the worst survival (median survival time, 1.2 years) and exhibited the highest risk of death (hazard ratio, 17.53; 95% CI, 4.27 to 71.97) compared with younger patients with combined RTEL1rs2297440 (V) and HMGA2rs1563834 (V) genotypes (median survival time, 7.8 years). CONCLUSION: Polymorphisms in the LIG4, BTBD2, HMGA2, and RTEL1 genes, which are involved in the double-strand break repair pathway, are associated with GBM survival.
Authors: Jakob C Mueller; Elin Lõhmussaar; Reedik Mägi; Maido Remm; Thomas Bettecken; Peter Lichtner; Saskia Biskup; Thomas Illig; Arne Pfeufer; Jan Luedemann; Stefan Schreiber; Peter Pramstaller; Irene Pichler; Giovanni Romeo; Anthony Gaddi; Alessandra Testa; Heinz-Erich Wichmann; Andres Metspalu; Thomas Meitinger Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2005-01-06 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Luo Wang; Qingyi Wei; Li-E Wang; Kenneth D Aldape; Yumei Cao; M Fatih Okcu; Kenneth R Hess; Randa El-Zein; Mark R Gilbert; Shiao Y Woo; Sujit S Prabhu; Greg N Fuller; Melissa L Bondy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Louise J Barber; Jillian L Youds; Jordan D Ward; Michael J McIlwraith; Nigel J O'Neil; Mark I R Petalcorin; Julie S Martin; Spencer J Collis; Sharon B Cantor; Melissa Auclair; Heidi Tissenbaum; Stephen C West; Ann M Rose; Simon J Boulton Journal: Cell Date: 2008-10-17 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Markus Bredel; Denise M Scholtens; Griffith R Harsh; Claudia Bredel; James P Chandler; Jaclyn J Renfrow; Ajay K Yadav; Hannes Vogel; Adrienne C Scheck; Robert Tibshirani; Branimir I Sikic Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-07-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: W J Curran; C B Scott; J Horton; J S Nelson; A S Weinstein; A J Fischbach; C H Chang; M Rotman; S O Asbell; R E Krisch Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-05-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Dietmar Krex; Barbara Klink; Christian Hartmann; Andreas von Deimling; Torsten Pietsch; Matthias Simon; Michael Sabel; Joachim P Steinbach; Oliver Heese; Guido Reifenberger; Michael Weller; Gabriele Schackert Journal: Brain Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: M P Little; F de Vathaire; A Shamsaldin; O Oberlin; S Campbell; E Grimaud; J Chavaudra; R G Haylock; C R Muirhead Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 1998-10-29 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Angela Y J Li; Lee Ming Boo; Shih-Ya Wang; H Helen Lin; Clay C C Wang; Yun Yen; Benjamin P C Chen; David J Chen; David K Ann Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-06-23 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Xinyu Tang; Mario A Cleves; Todd G Nick; Ming Li; Stewart L MacLeod; Stephen W Erickson; Jingyun Li; Gary M Shaw; Bridget S Mosley; Charlotte A Hobbs Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Xinyu Tang; Charlotte A Hobbs; Mario A Cleves; Stephen W Erickson; Stewart L MacLeod; Sadia Malik Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2015-06-02
Authors: Tianbo Jin; Yuan Wang; Gang Li; Shuli Du; Hua Yang; Tingting Geng; Peng Hou; Yongkuan Gong Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 6.166