Rui-Chao Chai1,2, Ke-Nan Zhang1,2,3, Yu-Qing Liu1,2, Fan Wu1,2, Zheng Zhao1,2, Kuan-Yu Wang1,2,3, Tao Jiang1,2,3, Yong-Zhi Wang1,2,3. 1. Department of Molecular Neuropathology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 2. Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas (CGGA), Beijing, China. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Abstract
AIMS: The pyrosequencing (PSQ) has been regarded as the gold standard for MGMT promoter methylation testing in gliomas. However, various CpG combinations are currently used in clinical practice. We aimed to clarify how and how many CpGs combined is robust enough to predict MGMT mRNA expression and therapeutic prognosis of patients. METHODS: Total 223 patients with WHO III/IV gliomas were enrolled from Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas, including two independent cohorts, the eight-site cohort (with CpGs 75-82 tested) and the seven-site cohort (with CpGs 72-78 tested). Spearman's correlation and ROC curves were employed to investigate the value of different CpG combinations on predicting MGMT mRNA expression. The ROC curves and Kaplan-Meier steps were performed to compare the TMZ therapeutic prognostic values of different CpG combinations. RESULTS: The methylation level of all individual CpG and CpG combinations for the eleven CpGs (CpGs 72-82), significantly correlated to MGMT mRNA expression (Spearman, all P < 0.0001), could effectively predict the mRNA expression (AUC, 0.86-0.91 in the eight-site cohort, 0.83-0.90 in the seven-site cohort). Moreover, the correlation coefficients and the predictive values presented equivalent when four or more CpGs combinedly used (AUC, 0.88-0.90 in the eight-site cohort, 0.87-0.88 in the seven-site cohort). Finally, similar results were also observed when using selected CpG combinations to predict therapeutic prognosis of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Four-CpG combinations of pyrosequencing are sufficient for evaluating the methylation status of MGMT and predicting therapeutic prognosis in gliomas.
AIMS: The pyrosequencing (PSQ) has been regarded as the gold standard for MGMT promoter methylation testing in gliomas. However, various CpG combinations are currently used in clinical practice. We aimed to clarify how and how many CpGs combined is robust enough to predict MGMT mRNA expression and therapeutic prognosis of patients. METHODS: Total 223 patients with WHO III/IV gliomas were enrolled from Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas, including two independent cohorts, the eight-site cohort (with CpGs 75-82 tested) and the seven-site cohort (with CpGs 72-78 tested). Spearman's correlation and ROC curves were employed to investigate the value of different CpG combinations on predicting MGMT mRNA expression. The ROC curves and Kaplan-Meier steps were performed to compare the TMZ therapeutic prognostic values of different CpG combinations. RESULTS: The methylation level of all individual CpG and CpG combinations for the eleven CpGs (CpGs 72-82), significantly correlated to MGMT mRNA expression (Spearman, all P < 0.0001), could effectively predict the mRNA expression (AUC, 0.86-0.91 in the eight-site cohort, 0.83-0.90 in the seven-site cohort). Moreover, the correlation coefficients and the predictive values presented equivalent when four or more CpGs combinedly used (AUC, 0.88-0.90 in the eight-site cohort, 0.87-0.88 in the seven-site cohort). Finally, similar results were also observed when using selected CpG combinations to predict therapeutic prognosis of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Four-CpG combinations of pyrosequencing are sufficient for evaluating the methylation status of MGMT and predicting therapeutic prognosis in gliomas.
Authors: Michael Weller; Roger Stupp; Guido Reifenberger; Alba A Brandes; Martin J van den Bent; Wolfgang Wick; Monika E Hegi Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: L Barault; A Amatu; F E Bleeker; C Moutinho; C Falcomatà; V Fiano; A Cassingena; G Siravegna; M Milione; P Cassoni; F De Braud; R Rudà; R Soffietti; T Venesio; A Bardelli; P Wesseling; P de Witt Hamer; F Pietrantonio; S Siena; M Esteller; A Sartore-Bianchi; F Di Nicolantonio Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Robert W Rapkins; Fan Wang; HuyTram N Nguyen; Timothy F Cloughesy; Albert Lai; Wendy Ha; Anna K Nowak; Megan P Hitchins; Kerrie L McDonald Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Wolfgang Wick; Christoph Meisner; Bettina Hentschel; Michael Platten; Alissa Schilling; Benedikt Wiestler; Michael C Sabel; Susanne Koeppen; Ralf Ketter; Markus Weiler; Ghazaleh Tabatabai; Andreas von Deimling; Dorothee Gramatzki; Manfred Westphal; Gabriele Schackert; Markus Loeffler; Matthias Simon; Guido Reifenberger; Michael Weller Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-09-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: J Dunn; A Baborie; F Alam; K Joyce; M Moxham; R Sibson; D Crooks; D Husband; A Shenoy; A Brodbelt; H Wong; T Liloglou; B Haylock; C Walker Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-06-16 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Alexandra McAleenan; Claire Kelly; Francesca Spiga; Ashleigh Kernohan; Hung-Yuan Cheng; Sarah Dawson; Lena Schmidt; Tomos Robinson; Sebastian Brandner; Claire L Faulkner; Christopher Wragg; Sarah Jefferies; Amy Howell; Luke Vale; Julian P T Higgins; Kathreena M Kurian Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-03-12