Claire Faulkner1, Abigail Palmer1, Hannah Williams2, Christopher Wragg1, Harry R Haynes2, Paul White3, Ruth-Mary DeSouza4, Maggie Williams1, Kirsten Hopkins3,5, Kathreena M Kurian2. 1. a Bristol Genetics Laboratory, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust , Bristol , UK. 2. b Department of Neuropathology , Brain Tumour Research Group, Frenchay Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust Bristol , Bristol , UK. 3. d Department of Biostatistics , University of West of England , Bristol , UK. 4. c Department of Neurosurgery , King's College Hospital , London , UK. 5. e Department of Neuro-oncology , Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre , Bristol , UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: EGFR and EGFRvIII analysis is of current interest because of new EGFRvIII vaccine trials opened in the UK. EGFR activation promotes cellular proliferation via activation of MAPK and PI3K-Akt pathways. EGFRvIII is the most common variant resulting from an in-frame deletion of 801bp, leading to constitutively active EGFR. METHOD: 51 glioblastoma samples from a cohort of 50 patients were tested for EGFR amplification by FISH and immunohistochemistry and EGFRvIII expression by reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR), and immunohistochemistry. EGFR and EGFRvIII expression was compared with Overall Survival in the cohort. RESULTS: Overall 22/51 samples (43%) were positive for EGFR, 16/51 (31%) were positive for EGFRvIII and 13/51 (25%) were positive for both. 9/51 cases (18%) were positive for EGFR alone, and 3/51 (6%) were positive for EGFRvIII alone. Of the EGFR positive cases, 22/51 (43%) were positive by FISH, 24/51 (47%) were positive by IHC and 2/51 (4%) were discrepant between methods (positive by IHC but non-amplified by FISH). Of the EGFRvIII positive cases, 16/51 (31%) were positive by RT-PCR, 17/51 (33%) were positive by IHC and 1/51 (2%) sample was discrepant (positive by IHC but not by RT-PCR). Neither EGFRvIII or EGFR are predictive of overall survival in this cohort. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, 25/51 (49%) of GBM showed EGFR alterations, including 16/51 (31%) with EGFRvIII. There was high concordance between IHC and FISH (96%) and IHC and RT-PCR (98%) as diagnostic methods. Neither EGFR or EGFRvIII is predictive of overall survival in this cohort. These results are key for selecting patients for novel individualised anti-EGFR therapies.
INTRODUCTION:EGFR and EGFRvIII analysis is of current interest because of new EGFRvIII vaccine trials opened in the UK. EGFR activation promotes cellular proliferation via activation of MAPK and PI3K-Akt pathways. EGFRvIII is the most common variant resulting from an in-frame deletion of 801bp, leading to constitutively active EGFR. METHOD: 51 glioblastoma samples from a cohort of 50 patients were tested for EGFR amplification by FISH and immunohistochemistry and EGFRvIII expression by reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR), and immunohistochemistry. EGFR and EGFRvIII expression was compared with Overall Survival in the cohort. RESULTS: Overall 22/51 samples (43%) were positive for EGFR, 16/51 (31%) were positive for EGFRvIII and 13/51 (25%) were positive for both. 9/51 cases (18%) were positive for EGFR alone, and 3/51 (6%) were positive for EGFRvIII alone. Of the EGFR positive cases, 22/51 (43%) were positive by FISH, 24/51 (47%) were positive by IHC and 2/51 (4%) were discrepant between methods (positive by IHC but non-amplified by FISH). Of the EGFRvIII positive cases, 16/51 (31%) were positive by RT-PCR, 17/51 (33%) were positive by IHC and 1/51 (2%) sample was discrepant (positive by IHC but not by RT-PCR). Neither EGFRvIII or EGFR are predictive of overall survival in this cohort. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, 25/51 (49%) of GBM showed EGFR alterations, including 16/51 (31%) with EGFRvIII. There was high concordance between IHC and FISH (96%) and IHC and RT-PCR (98%) as diagnostic methods. Neither EGFR or EGFRvIII is predictive of overall survival in this cohort. These results are key for selecting patients for novel individualised anti-EGFR therapies.
Authors: Marina N Nikiforova; Abigail I Wald; Melissa A Melan; Somak Roy; Shan Zhong; Ronald L Hamilton; Frank S Lieberman; Jan Drappatz; Nduka M Amankulor; Ian F Pollack; Yuri E Nikiforov; Craig Horbinski Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Meihua Luo; Leo Kit Cheung Lee; Bo Peng; Chung Hang Jonathan Choi; Wing Yin Tong; Nicolas H Voelcker Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 17.521
Authors: Dayane B Koshiyama; Patrícia Trevisan; Carla Graziadio; Rafael F M Rosa; Bibiana Cunegatto; Juliete Scholl; Valentina O Provenzi; Alexandre P de Sá; Fabiano P Soares; Maíra C Velho; Nelson de A P Filho; Ceres A Oliveira; Paulo R G Zen Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Rebecca C Abbott; Daniel J Verdon; Fiona M Gracey; Hannah E Hughes-Parry; Melinda Iliopoulos; Katherine A Watson; Matthias Mulazzani; Kylie Luong; Colleen D'Arcy; Lucy C Sullivan; Ben R Kiefel; Ryan S Cross; Misty R Jenkins Journal: Clin Transl Immunology Date: 2021-05-09
Authors: Nadia Senhaji; Sara Louati; Laila Chbani; Hind El Fatemi; Nawal Hammas; Karima Mikou; Mustapha Maaroufi; Mohammed Benzagmout; Said Boujraf; Sanae El Bardai; Marine Giry; Yannick Marie; Mohammed Chaoui El Faiz; Karima Mokhtari; Ahmed Idbaih; Afaf Amarti; Sanae Bennis Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Olle R Lindberg; Andrew McKinney; Jane R Engler; Gayane Koshkakaryan; Henry Gong; Aaron E Robinson; Andrew J Ewald; Emmanuelle Huillard; C David James; Annette M Molinaro; Joseph T Shieh; Joanna J Phillips Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-11-29