Sabine Spiegl-Kreinecker1, Daniela Lötsch1, Bahil Ghanim1, Christine Pirker1, Thomas Mohr1, Magdalena Laaber1, Serge Weis1, Alfred Olschowski1, Gerald Webersinke1, Josef Pichler1, Walter Berger1. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Wagner-Jauregg Hospital, Linz, Austria (S.S.-K., M.L., A.O.); Institute of Pathology and Neuropathology, Wagner-Jauregg Hospital, Linz, Austria (S.W.); Department of Internal Medicine, Wagner-Jauregg Hospital, Linz, Austria (J.P.); Institute of Cancer Research and Comprehensive Cancer Center-Central Nervous System Tumors Unit, Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria (D.L., C.P., T.M., W.B.); Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria (B.G.); Laboratory of Molecular Biology and Tumorcytogenetics, Hospital Barmherzige Schwestern, Linz, Austria (G.W.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Expression of the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) might be altered by activating mutations of the rs2853669 polymorphism within the promoter region. Here we investigate the impact of these genomic alterations on telomerase activation and dissect their prognostic potential in glioblastoma (GBM). METHODS: The respective TERT promoter region was sequenced in 126 GBM tissues and compared with clinical parameters and glioma biomarkers MGMT promoter methylation and IDH1 mutation. TERT mRNA expression, telomerase activity, and telomere lengths were determined by reverse transcriptase PCR, TRAP assay, and real-time PCR, respectively. RESULTS: Seventy-three percent of GBM patients harbored TERT promoter mutations associated with enhanced telomerase activity and TERT mRNA expression but reduced telomere lengths (P < .001 for all). Patients with mutated tumors exhibited significantly shorter overall survival in the entire cohort (11.5 vs 23.1 months; P < .0001) and in the primary GBM patient subgroup lacking IDH1 mutations (n = 120; P = .0084). This prognostic impact was confined to younger patients (aged <65 years), while the negative prognostic power of enhanced age at diagnosis was limited to those patients lacking TERT promoter mutations. Presence of the common single nucleotide polymorphism rs2853669, disrupting an endogenous Ets2 transcription factor-binding site, was associated with improved survival exclusively in patients with a wild-type TERT promoter. On the contrary, the shortest mean overall survival was detected in those patients harboring both an activating TERT promoter mutation and homozygous rs2853669 alleles. CONCLUSION: In summary, TERT promoter mutations are powerful prognosticators for worse course of disease in human GBM patients but their prognostic value is influenced by the rs2853669 polymorphism and age at diagnosis.
BACKGROUND: Expression of the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) might be altered by activating mutations of the rs2853669 polymorphism within the promoter region. Here we investigate the impact of these genomic alterations on telomerase activation and dissect their prognostic potential in glioblastoma (GBM). METHODS: The respective TERT promoter region was sequenced in 126 GBM tissues and compared with clinical parameters and glioma biomarkers MGMT promoter methylation and IDH1 mutation. TERT mRNA expression, telomerase activity, and telomere lengths were determined by reverse transcriptase PCR, TRAP assay, and real-time PCR, respectively. RESULTS: Seventy-three percent of GBM patients harbored TERT promoter mutations associated with enhanced telomerase activity and TERT mRNA expression but reduced telomere lengths (P < .001 for all). Patients with mutated tumors exhibited significantly shorter overall survival in the entire cohort (11.5 vs 23.1 months; P < .0001) and in the primary GBM patient subgroup lacking IDH1 mutations (n = 120; P = .0084). This prognostic impact was confined to younger patients (aged <65 years), while the negative prognostic power of enhanced age at diagnosis was limited to those patients lacking TERT promoter mutations. Presence of the common single nucleotide polymorphism rs2853669, disrupting an endogenous Ets2 transcription factor-binding site, was associated with improved survival exclusively in patients with a wild-type TERT promoter. On the contrary, the shortest mean overall survival was detected in those patients harboring both an activating TERT promoter mutation and homozygous rs2853669 alleles. CONCLUSION: In summary, TERT promoter mutations are powerful prognosticators for worse course of disease in human GBM patients but their prognostic value is influenced by the rs2853669 polymorphism and age at diagnosis.
Authors: Kerrie L McDonald; Julie McDonnell; Alessandra Muntoni; Jeremy D Henson; Monika E Hegi; Andreas von Deimling; Helen R Wheeler; Ray J Cook; Michael T Biggs; Nicholas S Little; Bruce G Robinson; Roger R Reddel; Janice A Royds Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Sanjay Shete; Fay J Hosking; Lindsay B Robertson; Sara E Dobbins; Marc Sanson; Beatrice Malmer; Matthias Simon; Yannick Marie; Blandine Boisselier; Jean-Yves Delattre; Khe Hoang-Xuan; Soufiane El Hallani; Ahmed Idbaih; Diana Zelenika; Ulrika Andersson; Roger Henriksson; A Tommy Bergenheim; Maria Feychting; Stefan Lönn; Anders Ahlbom; Johannes Schramm; Michael Linnebank; Kari Hemminki; Rajiv Kumar; Sarah J Hepworth; Amy Price; Georgina Armstrong; Yanhong Liu; Xiangjun Gu; Robert Yu; Ching Lau; Minouk Schoemaker; Kenneth Muir; Anthony Swerdlow; Mark Lathrop; Melissa Bondy; Richard S Houlston Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2009-07-05 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Roger Stupp; Monika E Hegi; Warren P Mason; Martin J van den Bent; Martin J B Taphoorn; Robert C Janzer; Samuel K Ludwin; Anouk Allgeier; Barbara Fisher; Karl Belanger; Peter Hau; Alba A Brandes; Johanna Gijtenbeek; Christine Marosi; Charles J Vecht; Karima Mokhtari; Pieter Wesseling; Salvador Villa; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Thierry Gorlia; Michael Weller; Denis Lacombe; J Gregory Cairncross; René-Olivier Mirimanoff Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Goncalo R Abecasis; Adam Auton; Lisa D Brooks; Mark A DePristo; Richard M Durbin; Robert E Handsaker; Hyun Min Kang; Gabor T Marth; Gil A McVean Journal: Nature Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Robert J A Bell; H Tomas Rube; Alex Kreig; Andrew Mancini; Shaun D Fouse; Raman P Nagarajan; Serah Choi; Chibo Hong; Daniel He; Melike Pekmezci; John K Wiencke; Margaret R Wrensch; Susan M Chang; Kyle M Walsh; Sua Myong; Jun S Song; Joseph F Costello Journal: Science Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Z Chen; J Wang; Y Bai; S Wang; X Yin; J Xiang; X Li; M He; X Zhang; T Wu; P Xu; H Guo Journal: Cancer Gene Ther Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 5.987
Authors: Eduardo Nagore; Barbara Heidenreich; Sívaramakrishna Rachakonda; Zaida Garcia-Casado; Celia Requena; Virtudes Soriano; Christoph Frank; Victor Traves; Esther Quecedo; Josefa Sanjuan-Gimenez; Kari Hemminki; Maria Teresa Landi; Rajiv Kumar Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: HuyTram N Nguyen; Amy Lie; Tie Li; Reshmi Chowdhury; Fei Liu; Byram Ozer; Bowen Wei; Richard M Green; Benjamin M Ellingson; He-Jing Wang; Robert Elashoff; Linda M Liau; William H Yong; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Timothy Cloughesy; Albert Lai Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 12.300