Erica Hlavin Bell1, Stephanie L Pugh2, Joseph P McElroy3, Mark R Gilbert4, Minesh Mehta5, Alexander C Klimowicz6, Anthony Magliocco7, Markus Bredel8, Pierre Robe9, Anca-L Grosu10, Roger Stupp11, Walter Curran12, Aline P Becker1, Andrea L Salavaggione1, Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan13, Kenneth Aldape14, Deborah T Blumenthal15, Paul D Brown14, Jon Glass16, Luis Souhami17, R Jeffrey Lee18, David Brachman19, John Flickinger20, Minhee Won2, Arnab Chakravarti1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center-Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, Ohio. 2. NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. The Ohio State University Center for Biostatistics, Columbus, Ohio. 4. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. University of Maryland Medical Systems, Baltimore, Maryland (during trial)6now with Miami Cancer Institute, Coral Gables, Florida. 6. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 7. Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 8. University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama. 9. Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, Netherlands. 10. University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 11. University Hospital Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland. 12. Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 13. Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio. 14. MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 15. Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. 16. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 17. McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Québec, Canada. 18. Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah. 19. Arizona Oncology Services Foundation, Tucson, Arizona. 20. UPMC-Shadyside Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: There is a need for a more refined, molecularly based classification model for glioblastoma (GBM) in the temozolomide era. OBJECTIVE: To refine the existing clinically based recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) model by incorporating molecular variables. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: NRG Oncology RTOG 0525 specimens (n = 452) were analyzed for protein biomarkers representing key pathways in GBM by a quantitative molecular microscopy-based approach with semiquantitative immunohistochemical validation. Prognostic significance of each protein was examined by single-marker and multimarker Cox regression analyses. To reclassify the prognostic risk groups, significant protein biomarkers on single-marker analysis were incorporated into an RPA model consisting of the same clinical variables (age, Karnofsky Performance Status, extent of resection, and neurologic function) as the existing RTOG RPA. The new RPA model (NRG-GBM-RPA) was confirmed using traditional immunohistochemistry in an independent data set (n = 176). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In 452 specimens, MGMT (hazard ratio [HR], 1.81; 95% CI, 1.37-2.39; P < .001), survivin (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.04-1.76; P = .02), c-Met (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.06-2.23; P = .02), pmTOR (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.97; P = .03), and Ki-67 (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.78; P = .007) protein levels were found to be significant on single-marker multivariate analysis of OS. To refine the existing RPA, significant protein biomarkers together with clinical variables (age, Karnofsky Performance Status, extent of resection, and neurological function) were incorporated into a new model. Of 166 patients used for the new NRG-GBM-RPA model, 97 (58.4%) were male (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [12.0] years). Higher MGMT protein level was significantly associated with decreased MGMT promoter methylation and vice versa (1425.1 for methylated vs 1828.0 for unmethylated; P < .001). Furthermore, MGMT protein expression (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.38-2.43; P < .001) had greater prognostic value for OS compared with MGMT promoter methylation (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28-2.44; P < .001). The refined NRG-GBM-RPA consisting of MGMT protein, c-Met protein, and age revealed greater separation of OS prognostic classes compared with the existing clinically based RPA model and MGMT promoter methylation in NRG Oncology RTOG 0525. The prognostic significance of the NRG-GBM-RPA was subsequently confirmed in an independent data set (n = 176). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This new NRG-GBM-RPA model improves outcome stratification over both the current RTOG RPA model and MGMT promoter methylation, respectively, for patients with GBM treated with radiation and temozolomide and was biologically validated in an independent data set. The revised RPA has the potential to contribute to improving the accurate assessment of prognostic groups in patients with GBM treated with radiation and temozolomide and to influence clinical decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00304031.
IMPORTANCE: There is a need for a more refined, molecularly based classification model for glioblastoma (GBM) in the temozolomide era. OBJECTIVE: To refine the existing clinically based recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) model by incorporating molecular variables. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: NRG Oncology RTOG 0525 specimens (n = 452) were analyzed for protein biomarkers representing key pathways in GBM by a quantitative molecular microscopy-based approach with semiquantitative immunohistochemical validation. Prognostic significance of each protein was examined by single-marker and multimarker Cox regression analyses. To reclassify the prognostic risk groups, significant protein biomarkers on single-marker analysis were incorporated into an RPA model consisting of the same clinical variables (age, Karnofsky Performance Status, extent of resection, and neurologic function) as the existing RTOG RPA. The new RPA model (NRG-GBM-RPA) was confirmed using traditional immunohistochemistry in an independent data set (n = 176). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In 452 specimens, MGMT (hazard ratio [HR], 1.81; 95% CI, 1.37-2.39; P < .001), survivin (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.04-1.76; P = .02), c-Met (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.06-2.23; P = .02), pmTOR (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.97; P = .03), and Ki-67 (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.78; P = .007) protein levels were found to be significant on single-marker multivariate analysis of OS. To refine the existing RPA, significant protein biomarkers together with clinical variables (age, Karnofsky Performance Status, extent of resection, and neurological function) were incorporated into a new model. Of 166 patients used for the new NRG-GBM-RPA model, 97 (58.4%) were male (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [12.0] years). Higher MGMT protein level was significantly associated with decreased MGMT promoter methylation and vice versa (1425.1 for methylated vs 1828.0 for unmethylated; P < .001). Furthermore, MGMT protein expression (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.38-2.43; P < .001) had greater prognostic value for OS compared with MGMT promoter methylation (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28-2.44; P < .001). The refined NRG-GBM-RPA consisting of MGMT protein, c-Met protein, and age revealed greater separation of OS prognostic classes compared with the existing clinically based RPA model and MGMT promoter methylation in NRG Oncology RTOG 0525. The prognostic significance of the NRG-GBM-RPA was subsequently confirmed in an independent data set (n = 176). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This new NRG-GBM-RPA model improves outcome stratification over both the current RTOG RPA model and MGMT promoter methylation, respectively, for patients with GBM treated with radiation and temozolomide and was biologically validated in an independent data set. The revised RPA has the potential to contribute to improving the accurate assessment of prognostic groups in patients with GBM treated with radiation and temozolomide and to influence clinical decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00304031.
Authors: Andrew S Chi; Tracy T Batchelor; Eunice L Kwak; Jeffrey W Clark; Daphne L Wang; Keith D Wilner; David N Louis; A John Iafrate Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: W J Curran; C B Scott; J Horton; J S Nelson; A S Weinstein; A J Fischbach; C H Chang; M Rotman; S O Asbell; R E Krisch Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-05-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: K A Jaeckle; H J Eyre; J J Townsend; S Schulman; H M Knudson; M Belanich; D B Yarosh; S I Bearman; D J Giroux; S C Schold Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jason K Molitoris; Yuan James Rao; Rajal A Patel; Liam T Kane; Shahed N Badiyan; Haley Gittleman; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Soren M Bentzen; Tim J Kruser; Jiayi Huang; Minesh P Mehta Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: William C Jackson; Christina I Tsien; Larry Junck; Denise Leung; Shawn Hervey-Jumper; Daniel Orringer; Jason Heth; Daniel R Wahl; Daniel E Spratt; Yue Cao; Theodore S Lawrence; Michelle M Kim Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Alireza Mansouri; Laureen D Hachem; Sheila Mansouri; Farshad Nassiri; Normand J Laperriere; Daniel Xia; Neal I Lindeman; Patrick Y Wen; Arnab Chakravarti; Minesh P Mehta; Monika E Hegi; Roger Stupp; Kenneth D Aldape; Gelareh Zadeh Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Lazaros Lazaridis; Niklas Schäfer; Sarah Teuber-Hanselmann; Tobias Blau; Teresa Schmidt; Christoph Oster; Johannes Weller; Theophilos Tzaridis; Daniela Pierscianek; Kathy Keyvani; Christoph Kleinschnitz; Martin Stuschke; Björn Scheffler; Cornelius Deuschl; Ulrich Sure; Ulrich Herrlinger; Sied Kebir; Martin Glas Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Michelle M Kim; Corey Speers; Pin Li; Matthew Schipper; Larry Junck; Denise Leung; Daniel Orringer; Jason Heth; Yoshie Umemura; Daniel E Spratt; Daniel R Wahl; Yue Cao; Theodore S Lawrence; Christina I Tsien Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 4.130