BACKGROUND: Update 3 of the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy (cIMPACT-NOW) recognizes amplification of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) as one important aberration in diffuse gliomas (World Health Organization [WHO] grade II/III). While these recommendations endorse testing, a cost-effective, clinically relevant testing paradigm is currently lacking. Here, we use real-world clinical data to propose a financially effective diagnostic test algorithm in the context of new guidelines. METHODS: To determine the prevalence, distribution, neuroradiographic features (Visually Accessible REMBRANDT Images [VASARI]), and prognostic relevance of EGFR amplification in lower-grade gliomas, we assembled a consecutive series of diffuse gliomas. For validation we included publicly available data from The Cancer Genome Atlas. For a cost-utility analysis we compared combined EGFR and isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) testing, EGFR testing based on IDH results, and no EGFR testing. RESULTS: In n = 71 WHO grade II/III gliomas, we identified EGFR amplification in 28.2%. With one exception, all EGFR amplifications occurred in IDH-wildtype gliomas. Comparison of overall survival showed that EGFR amplification denotes a significantly more aggressive subset of tumors (P < 0.0001, log-rank). The radiologic phenotype in the EGFR-amplified tumors includes diffusion restriction (15%, P = 0.02), >5% tumor contrast enhancement (75%, P = 0.016), and mild (not avid) enhancement (P = 0.016). The proposed testing algorithm reserves EGFR fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing for IDH-wildtype cases. Implementation would result in ~37.9% cost reduction at our institution, or about $1.3-4 million nationally. CONCLUSION: EGFR-amplified diffuse gliomas are "glioblastoma-like" in their behavior and may represent undersampled glioblastomas, or subsets of IDH-wildtype diffuse gliomas with inherently aggressive biology. EGFR FISH after IDH testing is a financially effective and clinically relevant test algorithm for routine clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Update 3 of the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy (cIMPACT-NOW) recognizes amplification of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) as one important aberration in diffuse gliomas (World Health Organization [WHO] grade II/III). While these recommendations endorse testing, a cost-effective, clinically relevant testing paradigm is currently lacking. Here, we use real-world clinical data to propose a financially effective diagnostic test algorithm in the context of new guidelines. METHODS: To determine the prevalence, distribution, neuroradiographic features (Visually Accessible REMBRANDT Images [VASARI]), and prognostic relevance of EGFR amplification in lower-grade gliomas, we assembled a consecutive series of diffuse gliomas. For validation we included publicly available data from The Cancer Genome Atlas. For a cost-utility analysis we compared combined EGFR and isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) testing, EGFR testing based on IDH results, and no EGFR testing. RESULTS: In n = 71 WHO grade II/III gliomas, we identified EGFR amplification in 28.2%. With one exception, all EGFR amplifications occurred in IDH-wildtype gliomas. Comparison of overall survival showed that EGFR amplification denotes a significantly more aggressive subset of tumors (P < 0.0001, log-rank). The radiologic phenotype in the EGFR-amplified tumors includes diffusion restriction (15%, P = 0.02), >5% tumor contrast enhancement (75%, P = 0.016), and mild (not avid) enhancement (P = 0.016). The proposed testing algorithm reserves EGFR fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing for IDH-wildtype cases. Implementation would result in ~37.9% cost reduction at our institution, or about $1.3-4 million nationally. CONCLUSION:EGFR-amplified diffuse gliomas are "glioblastoma-like" in their behavior and may represent undersampled glioblastomas, or subsets of IDH-wildtype diffuse gliomas with inherently aggressive biology. EGFR FISH after IDH testing is a financially effective and clinically relevant test algorithm for routine clinical practice.
Authors: Andrew S Chi; Tracy T Batchelor; Dora Dias-Santagata; Darrell Borger; Charles D Stiles; Daphne L Wang; William T Curry; Patrick Y Wen; Keith L Ligon; Leif Ellisen; David N Louis; A John Iafrate Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2012-07-22 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Hiroko Ohgaki; Pierre Dessen; Benjamin Jourde; Sonja Horstmann; Tomofumi Nishikawa; Pier-Luigi Di Patre; Christoph Burkhard; Danielle Schüler; Nicole M Probst-Hensch; Paulo César Maiorka; Nathalie Baeza; Paola Pisani; Yasuhiro Yonekawa; M Gazi Yasargil; Urs M Lütolf; Paul Kleihues Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-10-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: David A Gutman; Lee A D Cooper; Scott N Hwang; Chad A Holder; Jingjing Gao; Tarun D Aurora; William D Dunn; Lisa Scarpace; Tom Mikkelsen; Rajan Jain; Max Wintermark; Manal Jilwan; Prashant Raghavan; Erich Huang; Robert J Clifford; Pattanasak Mongkolwat; Vladimir Kleper; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Pascal O Zinn; Carlos S Moreno; Carl Jaffe; Rivka Colen; Daniel L Rubin; Joel Saltz; Adam Flanders; Daniel J Brat Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: D Williams Parsons; Siân Jones; Xiaosong Zhang; Jimmy Cheng-Ho Lin; Rebecca J Leary; Philipp Angenendt; Parminder Mankoo; Hannah Carter; I-Mei Siu; Gary L Gallia; Alessandro Olivi; Roger McLendon; B Ahmed Rasheed; Stephen Keir; Tatiana Nikolskaya; Yuri Nikolsky; Dana A Busam; Hanna Tekleab; Luis A Diaz; James Hartigan; Doug R Smith; Robert L Strausberg; Suely Kazue Nagahashi Marie; Sueli Mieko Oba Shinjo; Hai Yan; Gregory J Riggins; Darell D Bigner; Rachel Karchin; Nick Papadopoulos; Giovanni Parmigiani; Bert Vogelstein; Victor E Velculescu; Kenneth W Kinzler Journal: Science Date: 2008-09-04 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Matija Snuderl; April F Eichler; Keith L Ligon; Quynh U Vu; Michael Silver; Rebecca A Betensky; Azra H Ligon; Patrick Y Wen; David N Louis; A John Iafrate Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-10-06 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jane B Cryan; Sam Haidar; Lori A Ramkissoon; Wenya Linda Bi; David S Knoff; Nikolaus Schultz; Malak Abedalthagafi; Loreal Brown; Patrick Y Wen; David A Reardon; Ian F Dunn; Rebecca D Folkerth; Sandro Santagata; Neal I Lindeman; Azra H Ligon; Rameen Beroukhim; Jason L Hornick; Brian M Alexander; Keith L Ligon; Shakti H Ramkissoon Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2014-09-30
Authors: Sherise D Ferguson; Shouhao Zhou; Jason T Huse; John F de Groot; Joanne Xiu; Deepa S Subramaniam; Shwetal Mehta; Zoran Gatalica; Jeffrey Swensen; Nader Sanai; David Spetzler; Amy B Heimberger Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: C J Park; K Han; H Kim; S S Ahn; D Choi; Y W Park; J H Chang; S H Kim; S Cha; S-K Lee Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Dorothee Hölzl; Georg Hutarew; Barbara Zellinger; Beate Alinger-Scharinger; Hans U Schlicker; Christoph Schwartz; Karl Sotlar; Theo F J Kraus Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2022-03-29