Chang-Hyun Lee1, Chun Kee Chung2,3,4,5, Chi Heon Kim6,7,8. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Goyang, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. chungc@snu.ac.kr. 3. Neuroscience Research Institute, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. chungc@snu.ac.kr. 4. Clinical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. chungc@snu.ac.kr. 5. Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Seoul National University College of Natural Sciences, Seoul, Republic of Korea. chungc@snu.ac.kr. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. 7. Neuroscience Research Institute, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 8. Clinical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although ependymomas occur in both the brain and the spine, the prognosis is quite varied by tumor location. Spinal ependymomas usually follow a relatively benign course with more favorable prognosis than that of the intracranial ependymomas. The aim of this study is to evaluate the genetic differences between spinal ependymomas and their intracranial counterparts using a meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library. Comparative or single arm genetic studies that enrolled patients with both intracranial and spinal ependymoma were included. The frequency of genetic aberration was calculated in each group. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for direct comparative studies and the logit event rate (LER) and 95 % CI for single arm studies. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies comprising of 380 spinal ependymomas and 964 intracranial ependymomas were compared to determine the association of the genetic differences of ependymomas at different locations. There were 25 comparable genetic aberrations between spinal and intracranial ependymomas. Among the genes, the NF2 mutation was significantly associated with the spinal ependymomas rather than with the intracranial ependymomas (spinal tumor: LER -0.750, 95 % CI -1.233 to -0.266, intracranial tumor: LER -3.080, 95 % CI -3.983 to -2.177). Intracranial ependymomas were found to be significantly associated with EPB41L3 deletion (OR 0.34; 95 % CI 0.14-0.80) and HIC1 methylation (OR 0.12; 95 % CI 0.02-0.68). CONCLUSION: The genetic aberrations of spinal ependymomas are quite different from those of intracranial ependymomas. The difference in prognosis of ependymoma by location may be associated with genetic difference. A more detailed understanding of them may enable the development of targeted therapy and the estimation of prognosis.
PURPOSE: Although ependymomas occur in both the brain and the spine, the prognosis is quite varied by tumor location. Spinal ependymomas usually follow a relatively benign course with more favorable prognosis than that of the intracranial ependymomas. The aim of this study is to evaluate the genetic differences between spinal ependymomas and their intracranial counterparts using a meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library. Comparative or single arm genetic studies that enrolled patients with both intracranial and spinal ependymoma were included. The frequency of genetic aberration was calculated in each group. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for direct comparative studies and the logit event rate (LER) and 95 % CI for single arm studies. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies comprising of 380 spinal ependymomas and 964 intracranial ependymomas were compared to determine the association of the genetic differences of ependymomas at different locations. There were 25 comparable genetic aberrations between spinal and intracranial ependymomas. Among the genes, the NF2 mutation was significantly associated with the spinal ependymomas rather than with the intracranial ependymomas (spinal tumor: LER -0.750, 95 % CI -1.233 to -0.266, intracranial tumor: LER -3.080, 95 % CI -3.983 to -2.177). Intracranial ependymomas were found to be significantly associated with EPB41L3 deletion (OR 0.34; 95 % CI 0.14-0.80) and HIC1 methylation (OR 0.12; 95 % CI 0.02-0.68). CONCLUSION: The genetic aberrations of spinal ependymomas are quite different from those of intracranial ependymomas. The difference in prognosis of ependymoma by location may be associated with genetic difference. A more detailed understanding of them may enable the development of targeted therapy and the estimation of prognosis.
Authors: Mariko DeWire; Maryam Fouladi; David C Turner; Cynthia Wetmore; Cynthia Hawkins; Carmen Jacobs; Ying Yuan; Diane Liu; Stewart Goldman; Paul Fisher; Michael Rytting; Eric Bouffet; Yasmin Khakoo; Eugene I Hwang; Nicholas Foreman; Clinton F Stewart; Mark R Gilbert; Richard Gilbertson; Amar Gajjar Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: David W Hamilton; Meryl E Lusher; Janet C Lindsey; David W Ellison; Steven C Clifford Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2004-12-25 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: Hendrik Witt; Stephen C Mack; Marina Ryzhova; Sebastian Bender; Martin Sill; Ruth Isserlin; Axel Benner; Thomas Hielscher; Till Milde; Marc Remke; David T W Jones; Paul A Northcott; Livia Garzia; Kelsey C Bertrand; Andrea Wittmann; Yuan Yao; Stephen S Roberts; Luca Massimi; Tim Van Meter; William A Weiss; Nalin Gupta; Wiesia Grajkowska; Boleslaw Lach; Yoon-Jae Cho; Andreas von Deimling; Andreas E Kulozik; Olaf Witt; Gary D Bader; Cynthia E Hawkins; Uri Tabori; Abhijit Guha; James T Rutka; Peter Lichter; Andrey Korshunov; Michael D Taylor; Stefan M Pfister Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2011-08-16 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Khalida Wani; Terri S Armstrong; Elizabeth Vera-Bolanos; Aditya Raghunathan; David Ellison; Richard Gilbertson; Brian Vaillant; Stewart Goldman; Roger J Packer; Maryam Fouladi; Ian Pollack; Tom Mikkelsen; Michael Prados; Antonio Omuro; Riccardo Soffietti; Alicia Ledoux; Charmaine Wilson; Lihong Long; Mark R Gilbert; Ken Aldape Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2012-02-10 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Athanasios Athanasiou; Branko Perunovic; Robert D Quilty; Vassilis G Gorgoulis; Christos Kittas; Seth Love Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Chetan Bettegowda; Nishant Agrawal; Yuchen Jiao; Yuxuan Wang; Laura D Wood; Fausto J Rodriguez; Ralph H Hruban; Gary L Gallia; Zev A Binder; Callen J Riggins; Vafi Salmasi; Gregory J Riggins; Zachary J Reitman; Ahmed Rasheed; Stephen Keir; Sueli Shinjo; Suely Marie; Roger McLendon; George Jallo; Bert Vogelstein; Darell Bigner; Hai Yan; Kenneth W Kinzler; Nickolas Papadopoulos Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2013-04
Authors: Christopher A Miller; Sonika Dahiya; Tiandao Li; Robert S Fulton; Matthew D Smyth; Gavin P Dunn; Joshua B Rubin; Elaine R Mardis Journal: Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud Date: 2018-04-02
Authors: Purva P Nagarajan; Muhibullah S Tora; Stewart G Neill; Thais Federici; Pavlos Texakalidis; Anthony Donsante; Peter Canoll; Kecheng Lei; Nicholas M Boulis Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 5.923