BACKGROUND: The differential diagnosis between infiltrative glioma (IG) and benign or curable glial lesions, such as gliosis, pilocytic astrocytoma, dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor, ganglioglioma, or demyelinating disease, may be challenging for the pathologist because specific markers are lacking. Recently, we described a strong EGFR immunolabelling pattern in cells with a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio that enables the discrimination of low-grade IG from gliosis. The aim of this study was to extend our observation to high-grade glioma to assess whether EGFR expression pattern is of value in the discrimination of all IG from noninfiltrative glial lesions (NIG), including gliosis, benign tumors, and demyelinating disease. METHODS: One hundred one IG and 58 NIG were compared for immunohistochemical expression of EGFR with use of an antibody that recognizes an epitope in the extracellular domain of both EGFRwt and EGFRvIII. Highly EGFR-positive cells with a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio were isolated and further characterized. RESULTS: Cells with intense EGFR staining and a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio were significantly associated with the diagnosis of IG (P < .0001). The sensitivity and specificity of this staining pattern for the diagnosis of IG were 95% and 100%, respectively. EGFR expression was independent of IDH1 mutations and EGFR amplification. Finally, we showed that these particular cells displayed the phenotype and properties of glial progenitors and coexpressed CXCR4, a marker of invasiveness. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that cells with intense EGFR staining and a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio are specific criteria for the diagnosis of IG, irrespective of grade, histological subtype, and progression pathway, and their identification represents a tool to discriminate IG from benign or curable glial lesions.
BACKGROUND: The differential diagnosis between infiltrative glioma (IG) and benign or curable glial lesions, such as gliosis, pilocytic astrocytoma, dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor, ganglioglioma, or demyelinating disease, may be challenging for the pathologist because specific markers are lacking. Recently, we described a strong EGFR immunolabelling pattern in cells with a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio that enables the discrimination of low-grade IG from gliosis. The aim of this study was to extend our observation to high-grade glioma to assess whether EGFR expression pattern is of value in the discrimination of all IG from noninfiltrative glial lesions (NIG), including gliosis, benign tumors, and demyelinating disease. METHODS: One hundred one IG and 58 NIG were compared for immunohistochemical expression of EGFR with use of an antibody that recognizes an epitope in the extracellular domain of both EGFRwt and EGFRvIII. Highly EGFR-positive cells with a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio were isolated and further characterized. RESULTS: Cells with intense EGFR staining and a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio were significantly associated with the diagnosis of IG (P < .0001). The sensitivity and specificity of this staining pattern for the diagnosis of IG were 95% and 100%, respectively. EGFR expression was independent of IDH1 mutations and EGFR amplification. Finally, we showed that these particular cells displayed the phenotype and properties of glial progenitors and coexpressed CXCR4, a marker of invasiveness. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that cells with intense EGFR staining and a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio are specific criteria for the diagnosis of IG, irrespective of grade, histological subtype, and progression pathway, and their identification represents a tool to discriminate IG from benign or curable glial lesions.
Authors: Ian S Scott; Lesley S Morris; S M Rushbrook; Kate Bird; Sarah L Vowler; Neil G Burnet; Nicholas Coleman Journal: Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 8.090
Authors: Shideng Bao; Qiulian Wu; Roger E McLendon; Yueling Hao; Qing Shi; Anita B Hjelmeland; Mark W Dewhirst; Darell D Bigner; Jeremy N Rich Journal: Nature Date: 2006-10-18 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: C Colin; N Baeza; S Tong; C Bouvier; B Quilichini; P Durbec; D Figarella-Branger Journal: Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 8.090
Authors: C Colin; N Baeza; C Bartoli; F Fina; N Eudes; I Nanni; P-M Martin; L Ouafik; D Figarella-Branger Journal: Oncogene Date: 2006-05-04 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Sally Järvelä; S Järvellä; H Helin; J Haapasalo; Timo Järvelä; T Järvellä; T T Junttila; K Elenius; M Tanner; H Haapasalo; J Isola Journal: Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 8.090
Authors: Cécile Thirant; Barbara Bessette; Pascale Varlet; Stéphanie Puget; Josette Cadusseau; Silvina Dos Reis Tavares; Jeanne-Marie Studler; David Carlos Silvestre; Aurélie Susini; Chiara Villa; Catherine Miquel; Alexandra Bogeas; Anne-Laure Surena; Amélia Dias-Morais; Nadine Léonard; Françoise Pflumio; Ivan Bièche; François D Boussin; Christian Sainte-Rose; Jacques Grill; Catherine Daumas-Duport; Hervé Chneiweiss; Marie-Pierre Junier Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sandra Camelo-Piragua; Michael Jansen; Aniruddha Ganguly; James ChulMin Kim; Arjola K Cosper; Dora Dias-Santagata; Catherine L Nutt; A John Iafrate; David N Louis Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.148
Authors: Hai Yan; D Williams Parsons; Genglin Jin; Roger McLendon; B Ahmed Rasheed; Weishi Yuan; Ivan Kos; Ines Batinic-Haberle; Siân Jones; Gregory J Riggins; Henry Friedman; Allan Friedman; David Reardon; James Herndon; Kenneth W Kinzler; Victor E Velculescu; Bert Vogelstein; Darell D Bigner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-02-19 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Yinyan Wang; Kai Wang; Hongming Li; Jiangfei Wang; Lei Wang; Jianping Dai; Tao Jiang; Jun Ma Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elise P W Jenkins; Alina Finch; Magda Gerigk; Iasonas F Triantis; Colin Watts; George G Malliaras Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 16.806