Literature DB >> 26758195

Genomic profiling of lower-grade gliomas uncovers cohesive disease groups: implications for diagnosis and treatment.

Chang-Ming Zhang1,2, Daniel J Brat3.   

Abstract

Lower-grade gliomas (including low- and intermediate-grade gliomas, World Health Organization grades II and III) are diffusely infiltrative neoplasms that arise most often in the cerebral hemispheres of adults and have traditionally been classified based on their presumed histogenesis as astrocytomas, oligodendrogliomas, or oligoastrocytomas. Although the histopathologic classification of lower-grade glioma has been the accepted standard for nearly a century, it suffers from high intra- and inter-observer variability and does not adequately predict clinical outcomes. Based on integrated analysis of multiplatform genomic data from The Cancer Genome Atlas, lower-grade gliomas have been found to segregate into three cohesive, clinically relevant molecular classes. Molecular classes were closely aligned with the status of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations, tumor protein 53 mutations and the co-deletion of chromosome arms 1p and 19q, but were not closely aligned with histologic classes. These findings emphasize the potential for improved definition of clinically relevant disease subsets using integrated molecular approaches and highlight the importance of biomarkers for brain tumor classification.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26758195      PMCID: PMC4711065          DOI: 10.1186/s40880-015-0071-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chin J Cancer        ISSN: 1944-446X


Background

Diffuse low-grade and intermediate-grade gliomas [World Health Organization (WHO) grades II and III, hereafter called lower-grade gliomas] are infiltrative neoplasms that arise most often in the cerebral hemispheres of adults [1, 2]. Histologic criteria for the diagnosis of diffuse gliomas date from the early 20th century work of Bailey and Cushing [3], who grouped tumors by their presumed histogenesis based on their appearance under the microscope (i.e., classes were based on their “cell of origin”). Since then, histologic diagnosis has remained an efficient and cost-effective method for classification and grading, serving as the international standard [2]. Using these methods, lower-grade gliomas have traditionally been categorized into three classes: oligodendrogliomas, astrocytomas, and oligoastrocytomas. Following classification, diffuse gliomas are graded II–IV based on the presence of other morphologic features that reflect biological behavior, such as mitosis, microvascular proliferation, and necrosis, in order to predict clinical outcome and guide patient management. Despite widespread acceptance for nearly a century, it has been recognized that histologic classification and grading suffer from substantial inter- and intra-observer variability and do not adequately predict clinical outcomes [4, 5]. Increasingly, biomarker-based classification has been used to categorize disease and guide clinical decision making [6, 7]. For example, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations have been shown to be associated with a favorable prognosis in diffuse gliomas. The finding of co-deletion of chromosome arms 1p and 19q (1p/19q co-deletion) has been strongly linked with the oligodendroglioma histology and predicts better responses to radiochemotherapy. In order to determine if robust, clinically meaningful molecular classes of lower-grade gliomas could be identified and recognized by specific biomarkers, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) recently performed a comprehensive and integrated molecular analysis [8]. In their study, 293 untreated diffuse lower-grade glioma samples were collected from adults, including 100 astrocytomas, 77 oligoastrocytomas, and 116 oligodendrogliomas [8]. A comprehensive molecular analysis was performed for mutations using whole-exome sequencing, DNA copy number alterations, DNA methylation, microRNA expression, mRNA expression, and targeted protein expression. The results were integrated by two independent, multiplatform methods: cluster of clusters (CoC), which integrated data from gene expression (mRNA), DNA methylation, miRNA expression, and copy number alteration platforms; and OncoSign, which integrated mutations, amplifications, and deletions. These two independent and unsupervised analyses each pointed to three robust molecular classes of lower-grade gliomas. Investigators then compared these three molecular classes to histologic classification of gliomas and to the biomarker classification of lower-grade glioma based on the status of IDH mutation and 1p/19q co-deletion. For both the CoC and OncoSign analyses, the association between molecular class and IDH–1p/19q co-deletion status was far superior to the association between molecular class and histologic class, indicating that these biomarkers were capable of accurately capturing cohesive biological characteristics of lower-grade gliomas in a robust manner. Based on these studies, lower-grade gliomas were designated as either (1) IDH mutant with 1p/19q co-deletion; (2) IDH mutant without 1p/19q co-deletion; or (3) IDH wild-type. The first subtype of lower-grade gliomas, characterized by both IDH mutations and 1p/19q co-deletion, showed a strong association with the oligodendroglioma histologic class, consistent with the results of numerous studies which emphasized that the combination of IDH mutation and 1p/19q co-deletion is the molecular signature of this disease (Fig. 1) [9]. Other findings in this subtype included activating mutations of the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) promoter in nearly all cases (96%) [10]. Other frequent mutations were noted in capicua transcriptional repressor (CIC), neurogenic locus notch homolog protein 1 (NOTCH1), far upstream element-binding protein 1 (FUBP1), and the PI3 kinase pathway gene phosphatidylinositol-4, 5-bisphosphate 3-kinase, catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA). Of note, this subset was associated with the most favorable clinical outcomes, with a median patient survival of 8.0 years, partially due to the well-recognized radiochemosensitivity of tumors with 1p/19q co-deletion.
Fig. 1

Schematic representation of diffuse glioma molecular classification. Lower-grade gliomas, the diffuse low-grade and intermediate-grade gliomas (World Health Organization grades II and III), are divided into three cohesive molecular subtypes based on molecular markers, including isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations, co-deletion of chromosome arms 1p and 19q (1p/19q co-deletion), and tumor protein p53 (TP53)

Schematic representation of diffuse glioma molecular classification. Lower-grade gliomas, the diffuse low-grade and intermediate-grade gliomas (World Health Organization grades II and III), are divided into three cohesive molecular subtypes based on molecular markers, including isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations, co-deletion of chromosome arms 1p and 19q (1p/19q co-deletion), and tumor protein p53 (TP53) The second subtype of lower-grade gliomas had IDH mutations but lacked 1p/19q co-deletion and TERT promoter mutations (Fig. 1). Instead, they were characterized by mutations or losses of alpha thalassemia/mental retardation syndrome X-linked (ATRX) and tumor protein p53 (TP53) in 86 and 94% of cases, respectively. Thus, in IDH-mutant lower-grade gliomas, a strong, mutually exclusive relationship exists between TP53 mutations and 1p/19q co-deletions. IDH-mutant lower-grade gliomas have either one or the other of these molecular events, but rarely both, indicating a strict molecular dichotomy. Lower-grade gliomas with IDH, TP53, and ATRX alterations have the molecular signature of diffuse astrocytoma and a median patient survival of 6.3 years [11]. The third molecular subtype of lower-grade gliomas had wild-type IDH and displayed a range of genetic alterations completely distinct from those of IDH-mutant lower-grade gliomas (Fig. 1). Genetic alterations in IDH wild-type tumors showed a remarkable resemblance to primary glioblastoma (WHO grade IV) across all analytic platforms [including genetic aberrations in phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), neurofibromin 1 (NF1), cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A), TP53 regulator (MDM4), TERT promoter, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)]. Both the genomic properties and clinical behavior suggested that IDH wild-type lower-grade gliomas are immediate precursors to IDH wide-type glioblastoma. This unsupervised analysis of genome-wide molecular data identified three robust disease categories that can be recognized using well-established biomarkers, including IDH, 1p/19q, TP53, ATRX, and TERT. Importantly, these molecularly defined subsets are cohesive and reproducible, whereas histologic classes, by themselves, are not. For example, tumors diagnosed as “oligoastrocytoma” were found in all three molecular classes and lacked a defining molecular signature. Previously, diagnostic criteria for oligoastrocytomas have been inconsistent, and many lower-grade gliomas with “ambiguous morphology” have been treated as oligoastrocytomas [12]. Results indicated that lower-grade gliomas with an IDH mutation have either 1p/19q co-deletion or a TP53 mutation, reflecting two distinct molecular mechanisms of oncogenesis; furthermore, no evidence exists for a biological or genetic signature specific to oligoastrocytoma. Based on these findings and others, molecular markers can be used to determine lineage rather than histologic appearance, and the proportion of “oligoastrocytoma” diagnosis among lower-grade gliomas will likely decrease. Ultimately, the studies by TCGA indicate that advances in molecular profiling will allow neoplastic diseases to be defined using a new approach. Unsupervised clustering of whole-genome molecular data has ushered in a new age in which biological classes of disease can be precisely identified. In the case of lower-grade gliomas, well-established genetic markers (such as IDH, 1p/19q, ATRX, TP53, and TERT) were capable of identifying new disease classes with high fidelity. In histologic classification, ambiguous morphology is common, resulting in low reproducibility and inter-observer concordance, leading to confusion in clinical management. Molecular classification represents an improvement in diagnostic practice, enabling practitioners to identify clinically distinct neoplasms and confidently direct appropriate standard therapies or clinical trials.
  12 in total

1.  CBTRUS statistical report: Primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2006-2010.

Authors:  Quinn T Ostrom; Haley Gittleman; Paul Farah; Annie Ondracek; Yanwen Chen; Yingli Wolinsky; Nancy E Stroup; Carol Kruchko; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 2.  Biomarker-driven diagnosis of diffuse gliomas.

Authors:  Christina L Appin; Daniel J Brat
Journal:  Mol Aspects Med       Date:  2015-05-21

3.  Comprehensive, Integrative Genomic Analysis of Diffuse Lower-Grade Gliomas.

Authors:  Daniel J Brat; Roel G W Verhaak; Kenneth D Aldape; W K Alfred Yung; Sofie R Salama; Lee A D Cooper; Esther Rheinbay; C Ryan Miller; Mark Vitucci; Olena Morozova; A Gordon Robertson; Houtan Noushmehr; Peter W Laird; Andrew D Cherniack; Rehan Akbani; Jason T Huse; Giovanni Ciriello; Laila M Poisson; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Mitchel S Berger; Cameron Brennan; Rivka R Colen; Howard Colman; Adam E Flanders; Caterina Giannini; Mia Grifford; Antonio Iavarone; Rajan Jain; Isaac Joseph; Jaegil Kim; Katayoon Kasaian; Tom Mikkelsen; Bradley A Murray; Brian Patrick O'Neill; Lior Pachter; Donald W Parsons; Carrie Sougnez; Erik P Sulman; Scott R Vandenberg; Erwin G Van Meir; Andreas von Deimling; Hailei Zhang; Daniel Crain; Kevin Lau; David Mallery; Scott Morris; Joseph Paulauskis; Robert Penny; Troy Shelton; Mark Sherman; Peggy Yena; Aaron Black; Jay Bowen; Katie Dicostanzo; Julie Gastier-Foster; Kristen M Leraas; Tara M Lichtenberg; Christopher R Pierson; Nilsa C Ramirez; Cynthia Taylor; Stephanie Weaver; Lisa Wise; Erik Zmuda; Tanja Davidsen; John A Demchok; Greg Eley; Martin L Ferguson; Carolyn M Hutter; Kenna R Mills Shaw; Bradley A Ozenberger; Margi Sheth; Heidi J Sofia; Roy Tarnuzzer; Zhining Wang; Liming Yang; Jean Claude Zenklusen; Brenda Ayala; Julien Baboud; Sudha Chudamani; Mark A Jensen; Jia Liu; Todd Pihl; Rohini Raman; Yunhu Wan; Ye Wu; Adrian Ally; J Todd Auman; Miruna Balasundaram; Saianand Balu; Stephen B Baylin; Rameen Beroukhim; Moiz S Bootwalla; Reanne Bowlby; Christopher A Bristow; Denise Brooks; Yaron Butterfield; Rebecca Carlsen; Scott Carter; Lynda Chin; Andy Chu; Eric Chuah; Kristian Cibulskis; Amanda Clarke; Simon G Coetzee; Noreen Dhalla; Tim Fennell; Sheila Fisher; Stacey Gabriel; Gad Getz; Richard Gibbs; Ranabir Guin; Angela Hadjipanayis; D Neil Hayes; Toshinori Hinoue; Katherine Hoadley; Robert A Holt; Alan P Hoyle; Stuart R Jefferys; Steven Jones; Corbin D Jones; Raju Kucherlapati; Phillip H Lai; Eric Lander; Semin Lee; Lee Lichtenstein; Yussanne Ma; Dennis T Maglinte; Harshad S Mahadeshwar; Marco A Marra; Michael Mayo; Shaowu Meng; Matthew L Meyerson; Piotr A Mieczkowski; Richard A Moore; Lisle E Mose; Andrew J Mungall; Angeliki Pantazi; Michael Parfenov; Peter J Park; Joel S Parker; Charles M Perou; Alexei Protopopov; Xiaojia Ren; Jeffrey Roach; Thaís S Sabedot; Jacqueline Schein; Steven E Schumacher; Jonathan G Seidman; Sahil Seth; Hui Shen; Janae V Simons; Payal Sipahimalani; Matthew G Soloway; Xingzhi Song; Huandong Sun; Barbara Tabak; Angela Tam; Donghui Tan; Jiabin Tang; Nina Thiessen; Timothy Triche; David J Van Den Berg; Umadevi Veluvolu; Scot Waring; Daniel J Weisenberger; Matthew D Wilkerson; Tina Wong; Junyuan Wu; Liu Xi; Andrew W Xu; Lixing Yang; Travis I Zack; Jianhua Zhang; B Arman Aksoy; Harindra Arachchi; Chris Benz; Brady Bernard; Daniel Carlin; Juok Cho; Daniel DiCara; Scott Frazer; Gregory N Fuller; JianJiong Gao; Nils Gehlenborg; David Haussler; David I Heiman; Lisa Iype; Anders Jacobsen; Zhenlin Ju; Sol Katzman; Hoon Kim; Theo Knijnenburg; Richard Bailey Kreisberg; Michael S Lawrence; William Lee; Kalle Leinonen; Pei Lin; Shiyun Ling; Wenbin Liu; Yingchun Liu; Yuexin Liu; Yiling Lu; Gordon Mills; Sam Ng; Michael S Noble; Evan Paull; Arvind Rao; Sheila Reynolds; Gordon Saksena; Zack Sanborn; Chris Sander; Nikolaus Schultz; Yasin Senbabaoglu; Ronglai Shen; Ilya Shmulevich; Rileen Sinha; Josh Stuart; S Onur Sumer; Yichao Sun; Natalie Tasman; Barry S Taylor; Doug Voet; Nils Weinhold; John N Weinstein; Da Yang; Kosuke Yoshihara; Siyuan Zheng; Wei Zhang; Lihua Zou; Ty Abel; Sara Sadeghi; Mark L Cohen; Jenny Eschbacher; Eyas M Hattab; Aditya Raghunathan; Matthew J Schniederjan; Dina Aziz; Gene Barnett; Wendi Barrett; Darell D Bigner; Lori Boice; Cathy Brewer; Chiara Calatozzolo; Benito Campos; Carlos Gilberto Carlotti; Timothy A Chan; Lucia Cuppini; Erin Curley; Stefania Cuzzubbo; Karen Devine; Francesco DiMeco; Rebecca Duell; J Bradley Elder; Ashley Fehrenbach; Gaetano Finocchiaro; William Friedman; Jordonna Fulop; Johanna Gardner; Beth Hermes; Christel Herold-Mende; Christine Jungk; Ady Kendler; Norman L Lehman; Eric Lipp; Ouida Liu; Randy Mandt; Mary McGraw; Roger Mclendon; Christopher McPherson; Luciano Neder; Phuong Nguyen; Ardene Noss; Raffaele Nunziata; Quinn T Ostrom; Cheryl Palmer; Alessandro Perin; Bianca Pollo; Alexander Potapov; Olga Potapova; W Kimryn Rathmell; Daniil Rotin; Lisa Scarpace; Cathy Schilero; Kelly Senecal; Kristen Shimmel; Vsevolod Shurkhay; Suzanne Sifri; Rosy Singh; Andrew E Sloan; Kathy Smolenski; Susan M Staugaitis; Ruth Steele; Leigh Thorne; Daniela P C Tirapelli; Andreas Unterberg; Mahitha Vallurupalli; Yun Wang; Ronald Warnick; Felicia Williams; Yingli Wolinsky; Sue Bell; Mara Rosenberg; Chip Stewart; Franklin Huang; Jonna L Grimsby; Amie J Radenbaugh; Jianan Zhang
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Template for Reporting Results of Biomarker Testing of Specimens From Patients With Tumors of the Central Nervous System.

Authors:  Daniel J Brat; Philip T Cagle; Deborah A Dillon; Eyas M Hattab; Roger E McLendon; Margaret A Miller; Jan C Buckner
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2015-02-02       Impact factor: 5.534

5.  Farewell to oligoastrocytoma: in situ molecular genetics favor classification as either oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma.

Authors:  Felix Sahm; David Reuss; Christian Koelsche; David Capper; Jens Schittenhelm; Stephanie Heim; David T W Jones; Stefan M Pfister; Christel Herold-Mende; Wolfgang Wick; Wolf Mueller; Christian Hartmann; Werner Paulus; Andreas von Deimling
Journal:  Acta Neuropathol       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 17.088

6.  Improving diagnostic accuracy and interobserver concordance in the classification and grading of primary gliomas.

Authors:  S W Coons; P C Johnson; B W Scheithauer; A J Yates; D K Pearl
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1997-04-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 7.  Interobserver variation of the histopathological diagnosis in clinical trials on glioma: a clinician's perspective.

Authors:  Martin J van den Bent
Journal:  Acta Neuropathol       Date:  2010-07-20       Impact factor: 17.088

8.  Glioma Groups Based on 1p/19q, IDH, and TERT Promoter Mutations in Tumors.

Authors:  Jeanette E Eckel-Passow; Daniel H Lachance; Annette M Molinaro; Kyle M Walsh; Paul A Decker; Hugues Sicotte; Melike Pekmezci; Terri Rice; Matt L Kosel; Ivan V Smirnov; Gobinda Sarkar; Alissa A Caron; Thomas M Kollmeyer; Corinne E Praska; Anisha R Chada; Chandralekha Halder; Helen M Hansen; Lucie S McCoy; Paige M Bracci; Roxanne Marshall; Shichun Zheng; Gerald F Reis; Alexander R Pico; Brian P O'Neill; Jan C Buckner; Caterina Giannini; Jason T Huse; Arie Perry; Tarik Tihan; Mitchell S Berger; Susan M Chang; Michael D Prados; Joseph Wiemels; John K Wiencke; Margaret R Wrensch; Robert B Jenkins
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 176.079

9.  Frequent ATRX, CIC, FUBP1 and IDH1 mutations refine the classification of malignant gliomas.

Authors:  Yuchen Jiao; Patrick J Killela; Zachary J Reitman; Ahmed B Rasheed; Christopher M Heaphy; Roeland F de Wilde; Fausto J Rodriguez; Sergio Rosemberg; Sueli Mieko Oba-Shinjo; Suely Kazue Nagahashi Marie; Chetan Bettegowda; Nishant Agrawal; Eric Lipp; Christopher Pirozzi; Giselle Lopez; Yiping He; Henry Friedman; Allan H Friedman; Gregory J Riggins; Matthias Holdhoff; Peter Burger; Roger McLendon; Darell D Bigner; Bert Vogelstein; Alan K Meeker; Kenneth W Kinzler; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Luis A Diaz; Hai Yan
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2012-07

Review 10.  The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system.

Authors:  David N Louis; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Webster K Cavenee; Peter C Burger; Anne Jouvet; Bernd W Scheithauer; Paul Kleihues
Journal:  Acta Neuropathol       Date:  2007-07-06       Impact factor: 17.088

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  'Low grade glioma': an update for radiologists.

Authors:  Jennifer Larsen; Steve B Wharton; Fiona McKevitt; Charles Romanowski; Caroline Bridgewater; Hesham Zaki; Nigel Hoggard
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-12-07       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Radiogenomics of lower-grade glioma: algorithmically-assessed tumor shape is associated with tumor genomic subtypes and patient outcomes in a multi-institutional study with The Cancer Genome Atlas data.

Authors:  Maciej A Mazurowski; Kal Clark; Nicholas M Czarnek; Parisa Shamsesfandabadi; Katherine B Peters; Ashirbani Saha
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 4.130

3.  IDH mutation status trumps the Pignatti risk score as a prognostic marker in low-grade gliomas.

Authors:  Olatz Etxaniz; Cristina Carrato; Itziar de Aguirre; Cristina Queralt; Ana Muñoz; José L Ramirez; Rafael Rosell; Salvador Villà; Rocio Diaz; Ana Estival; Pilar Teixidor; Alberto Indacochea; Sara Ahjal; Laia Vilà; Carme Balañá
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2017-09-07       Impact factor: 4.130

4.  Deep Radiogenomics of Lower-Grade Gliomas: Convolutional Neural Networks Predict Tumor Genomic Subtypes Using MR Images.

Authors:  Mateusz Buda; Ehab A AlBadawy; Ashirbani Saha; Maciej A Mazurowski
Journal:  Radiol Artif Intell       Date:  2020-01-29

5.  MRI features predict p53 status in lower-grade gliomas via a machine-learning approach.

Authors:  Yiming Li; Zenghui Qian; Kaibin Xu; Kai Wang; Xing Fan; Shaowu Li; Tao Jiang; Xing Liu; Yinyan Wang
Journal:  Neuroimage Clin       Date:  2017-10-29       Impact factor: 4.881

6.  Prognostic value of magnetic resonance imaging features in low-grade gliomas.

Authors:  Liang Deng; Liangfang Shen; Lin Shen; Zhao Zhao; Yingpeng Peng; Hongjiao Liu; Haipeng Liu; Guangying Zhang; Zhanzhan Li; Kai Li; Erdong Shen; Yuanyuan Liu; Chao Liu; Xinqiong Huang
Journal:  Biosci Rep       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 3.840

Review 7.  Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, Positron Emission Tomography and Radiogenomics-Relevance to Glioma.

Authors:  Gloria C Chiang; Ilhami Kovanlikaya; Changho Choi; Rohan Ramakrishna; Rajiv Magge; Dikoma C Shungu
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 4.003

8.  Clinical characterization, genetic profiling, and immune infiltration of TOX in diffuse gliomas.

Authors:  Hao Zhang; Fan Fan; Yuanqiang Yu; Zeyu Wang; Fangkun Liu; Ziyu Dai; Liyang Zhang; Zhixiong Liu; Quan Cheng
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2020-08-06       Impact factor: 5.531

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.