BACKGROUND: Low-grade gliomas (LGGs) are rare brain neoplasms, with survival spanning up to a few decades. Thus, accurate evaluations on how biomarkers impact survival among patients with LGG require long-term studies on samples prospectively collected over a long period. METHODS: The 210 adult LGGs collected in our databank were screened for IDH1 and IDH2 mutations (IDHmut), MGMT gene promoter methylation (MGMTmet), 1p/19q loss of heterozygosity (1p19qloh), and nuclear TP53 immunopositivity (TP53pos). Multivariate survival analyses with multiple imputation of missing data were performed using either histopathology or molecular markers. Both models were compared using Akaike's information criterion (AIC). The molecular model was reduced by stepwise model selection to filter out the most critical predictors. A third model was generated to assess for various marker combinations. RESULTS: Molecular parameters were better survival predictors than histology (ΔAIC = 12.5, P< .001). Forty-five percent of studied patients died. MGMTmet was positively associated with IDHmut (P< .001). In the molecular model with marker combinations, IDHmut/MGMTmet combined status had a favorable impact on overall survival, compared with IDHwt (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.33, P< .01), and even more so the triple combination, IDHmut/MGMTmet/1p19qloh (HR = 0.18, P< .001). Furthermore, IDHmut/MGMTmet/TP53pos triple combination was a significant risk factor for malignant transformation (HR = 2.75, P< .05). CONCLUSION: By integrating networks of activated molecular glioma pathways, the model based on genotype better predicts prognosis than histology and, therefore, provides a more reliable tool for standardizing future treatment strategies.
BACKGROUND: Low-grade gliomas (LGGs) are rare brain neoplasms, with survival spanning up to a few decades. Thus, accurate evaluations on how biomarkers impact survival among patients with LGG require long-term studies on samples prospectively collected over a long period. METHODS: The 210 adult LGGs collected in our databank were screened for IDH1 and IDH2 mutations (IDHmut), MGMT gene promoter methylation (MGMTmet), 1p/19q loss of heterozygosity (1p19qloh), and nuclear TP53 immunopositivity (TP53pos). Multivariate survival analyses with multiple imputation of missing data were performed using either histopathology or molecular markers. Both models were compared using Akaike's information criterion (AIC). The molecular model was reduced by stepwise model selection to filter out the most critical predictors. A third model was generated to assess for various marker combinations. RESULTS: Molecular parameters were better survival predictors than histology (ΔAIC = 12.5, P< .001). Forty-five percent of studied patients died. MGMTmet was positively associated with IDHmut (P< .001). In the molecular model with marker combinations, IDHmut/MGMTmet combined status had a favorable impact on overall survival, compared with IDHwt (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.33, P< .01), and even more so the triple combination, IDHmut/MGMTmet/1p19qloh (HR = 0.18, P< .001). Furthermore, IDHmut/MGMTmet/TP53pos triple combination was a significant risk factor for malignant transformation (HR = 2.75, P< .05). CONCLUSION: By integrating networks of activated molecular glioma pathways, the model based on genotype better predicts prognosis than histology and, therefore, provides a more reliable tool for standardizing future treatment strategies.
Authors: Chao Lu; Patrick S Ward; Gurpreet S Kapoor; Dan Rohle; Sevin Turcan; Omar Abdel-Wahab; Christopher R Edwards; Raya Khanin; Maria E Figueroa; Ari Melnick; Kathryn E Wellen; Donald M O'Rourke; Shelley L Berger; Timothy A Chan; Ross L Levine; Ingo K Mellinghoff; Craig B Thompson Journal: Nature Date: 2012-02-15 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Houtan Noushmehr; Daniel J Weisenberger; Kristin Diefes; Heidi S Phillips; Kanan Pujara; Benjamin P Berman; Fei Pan; Christopher E Pelloski; Erik P Sulman; Krishna P Bhat; Roel G W Verhaak; Katherine A Hoadley; D Neil Hayes; Charles M Perou; Heather K Schmidt; Li Ding; Richard K Wilson; David Van Den Berg; Hui Shen; Henrik Bengtsson; Pierre Neuvial; Leslie M Cope; Jonathan Buckley; James G Herman; Stephen B Baylin; Peter W Laird; Kenneth Aldape Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Luigi Mariani; Gianluca Deiana; Erik Vassella; Ali-Reza Fathi; Christine Murtin; Marlène Arnold; Istvan Vajtai; Joachim Weis; Peter Siegenthaler; Martina Schobesberger; Michael M Reinert Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-09-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: D J van Meyel; D A Ramsay; A G Casson; M Keeney; A F Chambers; J G Cairncross Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1994-07-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: H J Dubbink; W Taal; R van Marion; J M Kros; I van Heuvel; J E Bromberg; B A Zonnenberg; C B L Zonnenberg; T J Postma; J M M Gijtenbeek; W Boogerd; F H Groenendijk; P A E Sillevis Smitt; W N M Dinjens; M J van den Bent Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Jean-Louis Boulay; André R Miserez; Christian Zweifel; Balasubramanian Sivasankaran; Veronika Kana; Anthony Ghaffari; Cordelia Luyken; Michael Sabel; Abdessamad Zerrouqi; Morten Wasner; Erwin Van Meir; Markus Tolnay; Guido Reifenberger; Adrian Merlo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2007-06-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David N Louis; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Webster K Cavenee; Peter C Burger; Anne Jouvet; Bernd W Scheithauer; Paul Kleihues Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2007-07-06 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Michael Wahl; Joanna J Phillips; Annette M Molinaro; Yi Lin; Arie Perry; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Joseph F Costello; Manisha Dayal; Nicholas Butowski; Jennifer L Clarke; Michael Prados; Sarah Nelson; Mitchel S Berger; Susan M Chang Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Yan Li; Peder Larson; Albert P Chen; Janine M Lupo; Eugene Ozhinsky; Douglas Kelley; Susan M Chang; Sarah J Nelson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 4.813