| Literature DB >> 31690770 |
Longbo Zhang1,2, Zhiqiang Liu1, Jin Li3, Tianxiang Huang1, Ying Wang4, Lianpeng Chang3, Wenjie Zheng3, Yujie Ma1, Fenghua Chen1, Xuan Gong1, Qianying Yuan5, Shannon Teaw2, Xinqi Fang6, Tao Song1, Lei Huo1, Xi Li1, Xuefeng Xia3, Zhixiong Liu1, Jun Wu7.
Abstract
Tremendous efforts have been made to explore biomarkers for classification and grading on gliomas. The goal of this study was to identify more molecular features that are associated with clinical outcomes by comparing the genomic profiles of primary and recurrent gliomas and determine potential recurrence leading factors that are significantly enriched in relapse tumors. Hybrid capture based next generation sequencing (NGS) analysis was performed on 64 primary and 17 recurrent glioma biopsies. Copy number variation (CNV) was more frequent in recurrent tumors and CDKN2A/B loss was significantly enriched. In addition, overall mutations in cell cycle pathway are more common in relapse tumors. The patterns of gene sets, including IDH1/TERT and IDH1/TP53 exhibited significant difference between the groups. Survival analysis uncovered the worse disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) associated with altered copy number and excessive activation of CELL CYCLE pathway. High Tumor Mutation Burden (TMB) was also a biomarker with great potential for poor prognosis. The assessment of genomic characteristics in primary versus recurrent gliomas aids the discovery of potential predictive biomarkers. The prognostic value of TMB in gliomas was raised for the first time.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31690770 PMCID: PMC6831607 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-52515-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Clinical features of patients with primary and recurrent glioma.
| Features | All (%) n = 81 | Primary (%) n = 64 | Recurrent (%) n = 17 | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Male | 49 (60.49) | 40 (62.5) | 9 (52.94) | 0.66 |
| Female | 32 (39.51) | 24 (37.5) | 8 (47.06) | |
|
| ||||
| <=40 | 25 (30.86) | 22 (34.38) | 3 (17.65) | 0.28 |
| >40 | 54 (66.67) | 41 (64.06) | 13 (76.47) | |
| Unknown | 2 (2.47) | 1 (1.56) | 1 (5.88) | |
|
| ||||
| I | 2 (2.47) | 2 (3.13) | 0 (0) | 0.34 |
| II | 28 (34.57) | 23 (35.94) | 5 (29.41) | |
| I | 19 (23.46) | 15 (23.44) | 4 (23.53) | |
| IV | 31 (38.27) | 24 (37.50) | 7 (41.18) | |
| Unknown | 1 (1.23) | 0 (0) | 1 (5.88) | |
|
| ||||
| GBM | 26 (32.10) | 20 (31.25) | 6 (35.29) | 0.84 |
| Astrocyte | 42 (51.85) | 34 (53.13) | 8 (47.06) | |
| Oligodendrocyte | 10 (12.35) | 8 (12.35) | 2 (11.769) | |
| Ependymal cell | 1 (1.23) | 1 (1.23) | 0 (0) | |
| Unknown | 2 (2.47) | 1 (1.23) | 1 (5.88) | |
|
| ||||
| + | 30 (37.04) | 23 (28.40) | 7 (41.18) | 0.69 |
| − | 31 (38.27) | 26 (32.10) | 5 (29.41) | |
| NA | 20 (24.69) | 15 (18.52) | 5 (29.41) | |
Figure 1Mutational landscape of primary and recurrent gliomas. Each column represents individual patients, and mutated genes are listed on the y-axis. Different colors refer to mutational functions and clinical information as indicated.
Figure 2Effects of somatic interactions on DFS and OS in primary subset. (A,B) Significant exclusive or co-occurance gene sets with Fisher’s Exact test are indicated in primary (A) and recurrent (B) tumors. (C) Survival analysis of TERT/IDH1 gene pattern in primary glioma patients. P values were calculated using the Log-rank Test.
Figure 3Comparison of SNVs or CNVs between primary and recurrent gliomas. (A) The prevalence of genes mutated in at least 5 samples across all tumors were calculated in different subsets. Red and yellow dots represent p < 0.05 and p < 0.1 respectively (Fisher’s Exact). (B) The incidence of CNV in primary and recurrent tumors. (C,D) Impact of CNV status on DFS (C) and OS (D). P values were calculated using the Log-rank Test.
Figure 4Analysis of key gene alterations grouped by biological function. (A) The landscape of signaling pathway alterations in glioma tumors. (B) Prevalence comparison of altered pathways in primary and recurrent subset with Fisher’s Exact test. (C) Survival analysis of primary patients with Cell cycle alterations versus patients without. P values were calculated using the Log-rank Test.
Figure 5Impact of tumor mutation burden on prognosis. (A) Effect of TMB on DFS and OS. P values were calculated using the Log-rank Test. (B) The comparison of TMB between groups with and without mutated MMR genes.