| Literature DB >> 23762372 |
Michał Bieńkowski1, Sylwester Piaskowski, Ewelina Stoczyńska-Fidelus, Małgorzata Szybka, Mateusz Banaszczyk, Monika Witusik-Perkowska, Emilia Jesień-Lewandowicz, Dariusz J Jaskólski, Anna Radomiak-Załuska, Dorota Jesionek-Kupnicka, Beata Sikorska, Wielisław Papierz, Piotr Rieske, Paweł P Liberski.
Abstract
Glioblastoma is a highly aggressive tumour of the central nervous system, characterised by poor prognosis irrespective of the applied treatment. The aim of our study was to analyse whether the molecular markers of glioblastoma (i.e. TP53 and IDH1 mutations, CDKN2A deletion, EGFR amplification, chromosome 7 polysomy and EGFRvIII expression) could be associated with distinct prognosis and/or response to the therapy. Moreover, we describe a method which allows for a reliable, as well as time- and cost-effective, screening for EGFR amplification and chromosome 7 polysomy with quantitative Real-Time PCR at DNA level. In the clinical data, only the patient's age had prognostic significance (continuous: HR = 1.04; p<0.01). At the molecular level, EGFRvIII expression was associated with a better prognosis (HR = 0.37; p = 0.04). Intriguingly, EGFR amplification was associated with a worse outcome in younger patients (HR = 3.75; p<0.01) and in patients treated with radiotherapy (HR = 2.71; p = 0.03). We did not observe any difference between the patients with the amplification treated with radiotherapy and the patients without such a treatment. Next, EGFR amplification was related to a better prognosis in combination with the homozygous CDKN2A deletion (HR = 0.12; p = 0.01), but to a poorer prognosis in combination with chromosome 7 polysomy (HR = 14.88; p = 0.01). Importantly, the results emphasise the necessity to distinguish both mechanisms of the increased EGFR gene copy number (amplification and polysomy). To conclude, although the data presented here require validation in different groups of patients, they strongly advocate the consideration of the patient's tumour molecular characteristics in the selection of the therapy.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23762372 PMCID: PMC3675194 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065444
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1A diagram depicting the premises upon which the EGFR gene copy number analysis is based.
In normal cells both the ratio of EGFR to GPER and the ratio of GPER to RNase is equal to 1. In cells with chromosome 7 polysomy the ratio of GPER to RNase increases, while in cells with EGFR amplification the ratio of EGFR to GPER increases. In cells with both the polysomy and the amplification both ratios are increased and the ratio of EGFR to RNase is equal to their product. A. normal cell; B. cell with chromosome 7 polysomy; C. cell with extrachromosomal EGFR amplification.
Selected results of the statistical analyses.
| Criterion | Group size | GW Test | Cox’s Proportional Hazard | ||
|
| |||||
|
| 60 | NA |
|
| |
|
| 60 | NA |
|
| |
|
| 60 |
|
|
| |
|
| 58 |
| HR = 1.051 | p = 0.882 | |
|
| 57 |
| HR = 0.572 | p = 0.239 | |
|
| 31 | p = 0.199 | HR = 0.879 | p = 0.671 | |
|
| 31 | p = 0.054 | HR = 0.667 | p = 0.535 | |
|
| |||||
|
| 57 | p = 0.279 | HR = 0.949 | p = 0.883 | |
|
| 59 | p = 0.396 | HR = 1.279 | p = 0.456 | |
|
| 57 | p = 0.627 | HR = 1.034 | p = 0.920 | |
|
| 58 |
|
|
| |
|
| 58 | p = 0.180 | HR = 0.774 | p = 0.383 | |
|
| |||||
|
|
| 30 | p = 0.144 | HR = 0.636 | p = 0.356 |
|
| 27 | p = 0.896 | HR = 1.234 | p = 0.683 | |
|
|
| 32 |
|
|
|
|
| 27 | p = 0.300 | HR = 0.601 | p = 0.351 | |
|
|
| 30 | p = 0.178 | HR = 1.478 | p = 0.388 |
|
| 27 | p = 0.544 | HR = 0.646 | p = 0.405 | |
|
|
| 31 | p = 0.206 | HR = 0.339 | p = 0.150 |
|
| 27 | p = 0.107 | HR = 0.198 | p = 0.113 | |
|
|
| 31 | p = 0.441 | HR = 0.922 | p = 0.850 |
|
| 27 | p = 0.478 | HR = 0.706 | p = 0.479 | |
|
| |||||
|
|
| 14 | p = 0.937 | HR = 1.127 | p = 0.908 |
|
| 15 |
|
|
| |
|
| 14 | p = 0.078 | HR = 0.094 | p = 0.115 | |
|
| 15 | p = 0.010 | HR = 0.119 | p = 0.014 | |
|
|
| 42 | p = 0.387 | HR = 1.121 | p = 0.773 |
|
| 42 | p = 0.823 | HR = 0.822 | p = 0.614 | |
|
| 43 | p = 0.199 | HR = 0.420 | p = 0.239 | |
|
| 42 | p = 0.849 | HR = 1.026 | p = 0.941 | |
|
| |||||
|
|
| 30 | p = 0.306 | HR = 0.932 | p = 0.879 |
|
| 33 |
|
|
| |
|
| 31 | p = 0.238 | HR = 1.309 | p = 0.539 | |
|
| 32 | p = 0.134 | HR = 0.343 | p = 0.155 | |
|
| 32 | p = 0.230 | HR = 0.976 | p = 0.955 | |
|
|
| 25 | p = 0.670 | HR = 0.827 | p = 0.734 |
|
| 24 | p = 0.903 | HR = 1.535 | p = 0.499 | |
|
| 24 | p = 0.944 | HR = 0.639 | p = 0.436 | |
|
| 24 | p = 0.548 | HR = 0.561 | p = 0.566 | |
|
| 24 | p = 0.627 | HR = 0.749 | p = 0.526 | |
Cox’s Proprtional Hazard values pertain to the univariate analysis for age and to the multivariate analysis (adjusted for age) for other analyses. HR values refer to the presence of given feature.
For example:
In the group of patients younger than 60 years old, the risk of death over given time is 3.745 times higher in those with EGFR amplification than in those without the amplification.
Abbreviations:
TP53– TP53 mutation;
EGFR – EGFR amplification;
Poly 7– chromosome 7 polysomy;
EGFRvIII – EGFRvIII expression;
CDKN2A – CDKN2A deletion;
y. o. – years old.
Figure 2Kaplan-Meier diagrams depicting differences in survival times related to the clinical aspects.
The attached table presents statistical data for each diagram. Cox's proportional hazard refers to univariate analysis for diagram A and to multivariate analysis for diagrams B, C, D. The calculated HR values pertain to the second subgroup listed (“total” subgroup for diagram B), while the HR values of the first subgroup (cumulatively of “partial” and “subtotal” subgroups for diagram B) equal to 1. ♦ - complete responses; Δ - censored responses. A. age of the patient, the threshold of 60 years included in the “younger” subgroup; B. extent of resection; C. radiotherapy; D. radio-chemotherapy.
Figure 3Kaplan-Meier diagrams depicting differences in survival times related to the molecular aspects.
The attached table presents statistical data for each diagram. Cox’s proportional hazard refers to multivariate analysis. The calculated HR values pertain to the second subgroup listed, while the HR values of the first subgroup equal to 1. ♦ - complete responses; Δ - censored responses. A. EGFRvIII expression; B. CDKN2A deletion; C. The combination of CDKN2A deletion with EGFR amplification; D. the combination of chromosome 7 polysomy with EGFR amplification.
Figure 4Kaplan-Meier diagrams depicting differences in survival times related to the EGFR amplification and clinical aspects.
The attached table presents statistical data for each diagram. Cox’s proportional hazard refers to multivariate analysis. The calculated HR values pertain to the second subgroup listed, while the HR values of the first subgroup equal to 1. ♦ - complete responses; Δ - censored responses. A. EGFR amplification in patients aged 60 years and less; B. EGFR amplification in patients treated with radiotherapy; C. comparison of patients not treated with radiotherapy with those with the EGFR amplification treated with radiotherapy; D. EGFR amplification in a cumulative group of younger patients and those treated with radiotherapy.