BACKGROUND: Mutations involving isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH 1) occur in a high proportion of diffuse gliomas, with implications on diagnosis and prognosis. About 90% involve exon 4 at codon 132, replacing amino acid arginine with histidine (R132H). Rarer ones include R132C, R132S, R132G, R132L, R132V, and R132P. Most authors have used DNA-based methods to assess IDH1 status. Preliminary studies comparing imunohistochemistry (IHC) with IDH1-R132H mutation-specific antibodies have shown concordance with DNA sequencing and no cross-reactivity with wild-type IDH1 or other mutant proteins. The present study compares results of IHC with DNA sequencing in diffuse gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty diffuse gliomas with frozen tissue samples for DNA sequencing and adequate tissue in paraffin blocks for IHC using IDH1-R132H specific antibody were assessed for IDH1 mutations. RESULTS: Concordance of findings between IHC and DNA sequencing was noted in 88% (44/50) cases. All 6 cases with discrepancy were immunopositive with DIA-H09 antibody. While in 3 of these 6 cases, DNA sequencing failed to reveal any mutations, R132L (arginine replaced by leucine) mutation was found in the rest 3 cases. Interestingly, of the immunopositive cases, 46.6% (14/30) showed immunostaining in only a fraction of tumor cells. CONCLUSIONS: IHC is an easy and quick method of detecting IDH1-R132H mutations, but there may be some discrepancies between IHC and DNA sequencing. Although there were no false-negative cases, cross-reactivity with IDH1-R132L was seen in 3, a finding not reported thus far. Because of more universal availability of IHC over genetic testing, cross-reactivity and staining heterogeneity may have bearing over its use in detecting IDH1-R132H mutation in gliomas.
BACKGROUND: Mutations involving isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH 1) occur in a high proportion of diffuse gliomas, with implications on diagnosis and prognosis. About 90% involve exon 4 at codon 132, replacing amino acid arginine with histidine (R132H). Rarer ones include R132C, R132S, R132G, R132L, R132V, and R132P. Most authors have used DNA-based methods to assess IDH1 status. Preliminary studies comparing imunohistochemistry (IHC) with IDH1-R132H mutation-specific antibodies have shown concordance with DNA sequencing and no cross-reactivity with wild-type IDH1 or other mutant proteins. The present study compares results of IHC with DNA sequencing in diffuse gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty diffuse gliomas with frozen tissue samples for DNA sequencing and adequate tissue in paraffin blocks for IHC using IDH1-R132H specific antibody were assessed for IDH1 mutations. RESULTS: Concordance of findings between IHC and DNA sequencing was noted in 88% (44/50) cases. All 6 cases with discrepancy were immunopositive with DIA-H09 antibody. While in 3 of these 6 cases, DNA sequencing failed to reveal any mutations, R132L (arginine replaced by leucine) mutation was found in the rest 3 cases. Interestingly, of the immunopositive cases, 46.6% (14/30) showed immunostaining in only a fraction of tumor cells. CONCLUSIONS: IHC is an easy and quick method of detecting IDH1-R132H mutations, but there may be some discrepancies between IHC and DNA sequencing. Although there were no false-negative cases, cross-reactivity with IDH1-R132L was seen in 3, a finding not reported thus far. Because of more universal availability of IHC over genetic testing, cross-reactivity and staining heterogeneity may have bearing over its use in detecting IDH1-R132H mutation in gliomas.
Entities:
Keywords:
DNA sequencing; IDH1-R132H; IDH1-R132L; diffuse gliomas; immunohistochemistry
Authors: David Capper; Hanswalter Zentgraf; Jörg Balss; Christian Hartmann; Andreas von Deimling Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2009-10-02 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Wolfgang Wick; Christian Hartmann; Corinna Engel; Mandy Stoffels; Jörg Felsberg; Florian Stockhammer; Michael C Sabel; Susanne Koeppen; Ralf Ketter; Richard Meyermann; Marion Rapp; Christof Meisner; Rolf D Kortmann; Torsten Pietsch; Otmar D Wiestler; Ulrike Ernemann; Michael Bamberg; Guido Reifenberger; Andreas von Deimling; Michael Weller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Elaine R Mardis; Li Ding; David J Dooling; David E Larson; Michael D McLellan; Ken Chen; Daniel C Koboldt; Robert S Fulton; Kim D Delehaunty; Sean D McGrath; Lucinda A Fulton; Devin P Locke; Vincent J Magrini; Rachel M Abbott; Tammi L Vickery; Jerry S Reed; Jody S Robinson; Todd Wylie; Scott M Smith; Lynn Carmichael; James M Eldred; Christopher C Harris; Jason Walker; Joshua B Peck; Feiyu Du; Adam F Dukes; Gabriel E Sanderson; Anthony M Brummett; Eric Clark; Joshua F McMichael; Rick J Meyer; Jonathan K Schindler; Craig S Pohl; John W Wallis; Xiaoqi Shi; Ling Lin; Heather Schmidt; Yuzhu Tang; Carrie Haipek; Madeline E Wiechert; Jolynda V Ivy; Joelle Kalicki; Glendoria Elliott; Rhonda E Ries; Jacqueline E Payton; Peter Westervelt; Michael H Tomasson; Mark A Watson; Jack Baty; Sharon Heath; William D Shannon; Rakesh Nagarajan; Daniel C Link; Matthew J Walter; Timothy A Graubert; John F DiPersio; Richard K Wilson; Timothy J Ley Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Yukinari Kato; Genglin Jin; Chien-Tsun Kuan; Roger E McLendon; Hai Yan; Darell D Bigner Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun Date: 2009-10-07 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Lonneke A M Gravendeel; Nanne K Kloosterhof; Linda B C Bralten; Ronald van Marion; Hendrikus Jan Dubbink; Winand Dinjens; Fonnet E Bleeker; Casper C Hoogenraad; Erna Michiels; Johan M Kros; Martin van den Bent; Peter A E Sillevis Smitt; Pim J French Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Michael Weller; Jörg Felsberg; Christian Hartmann; Hilmar Berger; Joachim P Steinbach; Johannes Schramm; Manfred Westphal; Gabriele Schackert; Matthias Simon; Jörg C Tonn; Oliver Heese; Dietmar Krex; Guido Nikkhah; Torsten Pietsch; Otmar Wiestler; Guido Reifenberger; Andreas von Deimling; Markus Loeffler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Martin J van den Bent; Hendrikus J Dubbink; Yannick Marie; Alba A Brandes; Martin J B Taphoorn; Pieter Wesseling; Marc Frenay; Cees C Tijssen; Denis Lacombe; Ahmed Idbaih; Ronald van Marion; Johan M Kros; Winand N M Dinjens; Thierry Gorlia; Marc Sanson Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 13.801
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: Shanshan Jiang; Tianyu Zou; Charles G Eberhart; Maria A V Villalobos; Hye-Young Heo; Yi Zhang; Yu Wang; Xianlong Wang; Hao Yu; Yongxing Du; Peter C M van Zijl; Zhibo Wen; Jinyuan Zhou Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-07-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Chandan Ganesh Bangalore Yogananda; Bhavya R Shah; Maryam Vejdani-Jahromi; Sahil S Nalawade; Gowtham K Murugesan; Frank F Yu; Marco C Pinho; Benjamin C Wagner; Bruce Mickey; Toral R Patel; Baowei Fei; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Joseph A Maldjian Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Diego Avellaneda Matteo; Adam J Grunseth; Eric R Gonzalez; Stacy L Anselmo; Madison A Kennedy; Precious Moman; David A Scott; An Hoang; Christal D Sohl Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Olivera Casar-Borota; Kristin Astrid Berland Øystese; Magnus Sundström; Linea Melchior; Vera Popovic Journal: Pituitary Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 4.107