Sofia Mason1, Kerrie McDonald. 1. Cure for Life Foundation for Neuro-Oncology, Adult Cancer Program, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia. sofia.mason@unsw.edu.au
Abstract
PURPOSE: Glioblastoma is a universally fatal cancer of the central nervous system which responds poorly to treatment. MGMT has potential as a predictive biomarker in glioblastoma patients to determine treatment response. However, methods of measuring MGMT are currently unsatisfactory, and as such, use of this marker has not translated well into the clinic. This paper aims to review current methodology of MGMT measurement, with a focus on immunohistochemistry as a potential way forward. TOPICS AND METHODS: Studies of glioma patients where MGMT immunohistochemistry was undertaken, as well as the literature surrounding methylation analyses and the regulation of MGMT, were reviewed. RESULTS: All methods of measuring MGMT were disputed in some way in the literature. A trend of discordance between methylation analyses and protein analyses was present. There is a lack of standardisation in the measurement of MGMT, and as a result, it seems that there are highly variable results. CONCLUSIONS: No single method of MGMT analysis has emerged as a clear choice for routine clinical testing of MGMT in glioma patients. Although methylation analyses are favoured, their expense and inaccessibility are barriers to their use in routine clinical practice. More research into immunohistochemistry is needed to determine whether it can serve as a reliable and cost-effective alternative to methylation analyses.
PURPOSE:Glioblastoma is a universally fatal cancer of the central nervous system which responds poorly to treatment. MGMT has potential as a predictive biomarker in glioblastomapatients to determine treatment response. However, methods of measuring MGMT are currently unsatisfactory, and as such, use of this marker has not translated well into the clinic. This paper aims to review current methodology of MGMT measurement, with a focus on immunohistochemistry as a potential way forward. TOPICS AND METHODS: Studies of gliomapatients where MGMT immunohistochemistry was undertaken, as well as the literature surrounding methylation analyses and the regulation of MGMT, were reviewed. RESULTS: All methods of measuring MGMT were disputed in some way in the literature. A trend of discordance between methylation analyses and protein analyses was present. There is a lack of standardisation in the measurement of MGMT, and as a result, it seems that there are highly variable results. CONCLUSIONS: No single method of MGMT analysis has emerged as a clear choice for routine clinical testing of MGMT in gliomapatients. Although methylation analyses are favoured, their expense and inaccessibility are barriers to their use in routine clinical practice. More research into immunohistochemistry is needed to determine whether it can serve as a reliable and cost-effective alternative to methylation analyses.
Authors: Michael Weller; Roger Stupp; Guido Reifenberger; Alba A Brandes; Martin J van den Bent; Wolfgang Wick; Monika E Hegi Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Marta Brell; Avelina Tortosa; Eugenia Verger; Juan Miguel Gil; Nuria Viñolas; Salvador Villá; Juan José Acebes; Lluis Caral; Teresa Pujol; Isidro Ferrer; Teresa Ribalta; Francesc Graus Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-07-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Markus Weiler; Christian Hartmann; Dorothee Wiewrodt; Ulrich Herrlinger; Thierry Gorlia; Oliver Bähr; Richard Meyermann; Michael Bamberg; Marcos Tatagiba; Andreas von Deimling; Michael Weller; Wolfgang Wick Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Maria Möllemann; Marietta Wolter; Jörg Felsberg; V Peter Collins; Guido Reifenberger Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jonathon F Parkinson; Helen R Wheeler; Adele Clarkson; Catriona A McKenzie; Michael T Biggs; Nicholas S Little; Raymond J Cook; Marinella Messina; Bruce G Robinson; Kerrie L McDonald Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Rikke H Dahlrot; Pia Larsen; Henning B Boldt; Melissa S Kreutzfeldt; Steinbjørn Hansen; Jacob B Hjelmborg; Bjarne Winther Kristensen Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Alireza Mansouri; Laureen D Hachem; Sheila Mansouri; Farshad Nassiri; Normand J Laperriere; Daniel Xia; Neal I Lindeman; Patrick Y Wen; Arnab Chakravarti; Minesh P Mehta; Monika E Hegi; Roger Stupp; Kenneth D Aldape; Gelareh Zadeh Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Lauren R Schaff; Dongyao Yan; Sheeno Thyparambil; Yuan Tian; Fabiola Cecchi; Marc Rosenblum; Anne S Reiner; Katherine S Panageas; Todd Hembrough; Andrew L Lin Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Michael S Bobola; Mohammad Alnoor; John Y-S Chen; Douglas D Kolstoe; Daniel L Silbergeld; Robert C Rostomily; A Blank; Marc C Chamberlain; John R Silber Journal: BBA Clin Date: 2015-06-01