BACKGROUND: In gliomas molecular biomarkers are increasingly gaining diagnostic, prognostic and predictive significance. Determination of biomarker status after biopsy is important as not all patients are eligible for open tumor resection. We developed and validated prospectively (6/10-12/11) a protocol allowing for both reliable determination of multiple biomarkers and representative histological diagnoses from small-sized biopsies. METHODS: All molecular stereotactic biopsies were performed according to a detailed workflow. The selection of specimens best suited for molecular analyses was intra-operatively guided by the attending neuropathologist. Postoperative screening was done by methylation specific PCR using two distinct cryopreserved specimens to test for reproducibility of the findings and to rule out contamination. The DNA of a single best-suited specimen (1 mm(3)) was subjected to detailed molecular analysis (MGMT promoter methylation, IDH1/2 mutational status, LOH 1p and/or 19q). RESULTS: 159 consecutively enrolled untreated gliomas were analyzed (94 glioblastomas, 2 gliosarcomas, 24 anaplastic astrocytomas, 10 oligo-tumors grade II/III, 20 grade II astrocytomas and 9 pilocytic astrocytomas). Transient morbidity was 2 %. Overall, the drop-out rate due to tissue contamination was 0.4 %. Median time from biopsy to histological and molecular genetic analyses was 3 and 5 days, respectively. Distributions of the respective biomarker status for tumor subgroups were consistent with the literature. The final histological diagnosis was changed/modified in 5/159 patients according to molecular findings. Treatment after molecular biopsy was highly personalized. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular stereotactic biopsy is feasible and safe, can be implemented in daily clinical practice, improves diagnostic precision and enables personalized treatment.
BACKGROUND: In gliomas molecular biomarkers are increasingly gaining diagnostic, prognostic and predictive significance. Determination of biomarker status after biopsy is important as not all patients are eligible for open tumor resection. We developed and validated prospectively (6/10-12/11) a protocol allowing for both reliable determination of multiple biomarkers and representative histological diagnoses from small-sized biopsies. METHODS: All molecular stereotactic biopsies were performed according to a detailed workflow. The selection of specimens best suited for molecular analyses was intra-operatively guided by the attending neuropathologist. Postoperative screening was done by methylation specific PCR using two distinct cryopreserved specimens to test for reproducibility of the findings and to rule out contamination. The DNA of a single best-suited specimen (1 mm(3)) was subjected to detailed molecular analysis (MGMT promoter methylation, IDH1/2 mutational status, LOH 1p and/or 19q). RESULTS: 159 consecutively enrolled untreated gliomas were analyzed (94 glioblastomas, 2 gliosarcomas, 24 anaplastic astrocytomas, 10 oligo-tumors grade II/III, 20 grade II astrocytomas and 9 pilocytic astrocytomas). Transient morbidity was 2 %. Overall, the drop-out rate due to tissue contamination was 0.4 %. Median time from biopsy to histological and molecular genetic analyses was 3 and 5 days, respectively. Distributions of the respective biomarker status for tumor subgroups were consistent with the literature. The final histological diagnosis was changed/modified in 5/159 patients according to molecular findings. Treatment after molecular biopsy was highly personalized. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular stereotactic biopsy is feasible and safe, can be implemented in daily clinical practice, improves diagnostic precision and enables personalized treatment.
Authors: Patrick Y Wen; Michael Weller; Eudocia Quant Lee; Brian M Alexander; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Floris P Barthel; Tracy T Batchelor; Ranjit S Bindra; Susan M Chang; E Antonio Chiocca; Timothy F Cloughesy; John F DeGroot; Evanthia Galanis; Mark R Gilbert; Monika E Hegi; Craig Horbinski; Raymond Y Huang; Andrew B Lassman; Emilie Le Rhun; Michael Lim; Minesh P Mehta; Ingo K Mellinghoff; Giuseppe Minniti; David Nathanson; Michael Platten; Matthias Preusser; Patrick Roth; Marc Sanson; David Schiff; Susan C Short; Martin J B Taphoorn; Joerg-Christian Tonn; Jonathan Tsang; Roel G W Verhaak; Andreas von Deimling; Wolfgang Wick; Gelareh Zadeh; David A Reardon; Kenneth D Aldape; Martin J van den Bent Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Oliver Schnell; Valerie Albrecht; David Pfirrmann; Sabina Eigenbrod; Bjarne Krebs; Alexander Romagna; Sebastian Siller; Armin Giese; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Christian Schichor Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Robert Forbrig; Lucas L Geyer; Robert Stahl; Jun Thorsteinsdottir; Christian Schichor; Friedrich-Wilhelm Kreth; Maximilian Patzig; Moriz Herzberg; Thomas Liebig; Franziska Dorn; Christoph G Trumm Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M Unterrainer; D F Fleischmann; F Vettermann; V Ruf; L Kaiser; D Nelwan; S Lindner; M Brendel; V Wenter; S Stöcklein; J Herms; V M Milenkovic; R Rupprecht; J C Tonn; C Belka; P Bartenstein; M Niyazi; N L Albert Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 9.236