Annika Malmström1,2, Małgorzata Łysiak2, Bjarne Winther Kristensen3, Elizabeth Hovey4,5, Roger Henriksson6, Peter Söderkvist1. 1. Department of Advanced Home Care, Linköping University, Sweden. 2. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Sweden. 3. Department of Pathology, Odense University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Nelune Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 5. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 6. Department of Radiation Sciences, University of Umeå, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glioma O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status informs clinical decision making. Worldwide different methods and cutoff levels are used, which can lead to discordant methylation results. METHODS: We conducted an international survey to clarify which methods are regularly used and why. We also explored opinions regarding international consensus on methods and cutoff. RESULTS: The survey had 152 respondents from 25 countries. MGMT methylation status is determined for all glioblastomas in 37% of laboratories. The most common methods are methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (msPCR) (37%) and pyrosequencing (34%). A method is selected for simplicity (56%), cost-effectiveness (50%), and reproducibility of results (52%). For sequencing, the number of CpG sites analyzed varies from 1-3 up to more than 16. For 50% of laboratories, the company producing the kit determines which CpG sites are examined, whereas 33% select the sites themselves. Selection of cutoff is equally distributed among a cutoff defined in the literature, by the local laboratory, or by the outside laboratory performing the analysis. This cutoff varies, reported from 1% to 30%, and in 1 laboratory tumor is determined as methylated in case of 1 methylated CpG site of 17 analyzed. Some report tumors as unmethylated or weakly vs highly methylated. An international consensus on MGMT methylation method and cutoff is warranted by 66% and 76% of respondents, respectively. The method preferred would be msPCR (45%) or pyrosequencing (42%), whereas 18% suggest next-generation sequencing. CONCLUSION: Although analysis of MGMT methylation status is routine, there is controversy regarding laboratory methods and cutoff level. Most respondents favor development of international consensus guidelines.
BACKGROUND: Glioma O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status informs clinical decision making. Worldwide different methods and cutoff levels are used, which can lead to discordant methylation results. METHODS: We conducted an international survey to clarify which methods are regularly used and why. We also explored opinions regarding international consensus on methods and cutoff. RESULTS: The survey had 152 respondents from 25 countries. MGMT methylation status is determined for all glioblastomas in 37% of laboratories. The most common methods are methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (msPCR) (37%) and pyrosequencing (34%). A method is selected for simplicity (56%), cost-effectiveness (50%), and reproducibility of results (52%). For sequencing, the number of CpG sites analyzed varies from 1-3 up to more than 16. For 50% of laboratories, the company producing the kit determines which CpG sites are examined, whereas 33% select the sites themselves. Selection of cutoff is equally distributed among a cutoff defined in the literature, by the local laboratory, or by the outside laboratory performing the analysis. This cutoff varies, reported from 1% to 30%, and in 1 laboratory tumor is determined as methylated in case of 1 methylated CpG site of 17 analyzed. Some report tumors as unmethylated or weakly vs highly methylated. An international consensus on MGMT methylation method and cutoff is warranted by 66% and 76% of respondents, respectively. The method preferred would be msPCR (45%) or pyrosequencing (42%), whereas 18% suggest next-generation sequencing. CONCLUSION: Although analysis of MGMT methylation status is routine, there is controversy regarding laboratory methods and cutoff level. Most respondents favor development of international consensus guidelines.
Authors: Pierre Bady; Davide Sciuscio; Annie-Claire Diserens; Jocelyne Bloch; Martin J van den Bent; Christine Marosi; Pierre-Yves Dietrich; Michael Weller; Luigi Mariani; Frank L Heppner; David R Mcdonald; Denis Lacombe; Roger Stupp; Mauro Delorenzi; Monika E Hegi Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2012-07-19 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Wolfgang Wick; Thierry Gorlia; Martin Bendszus; Martin Taphoorn; Felix Sahm; Inga Harting; Alba A Brandes; Walter Taal; Julien Domont; Ahmed Idbaih; Mario Campone; Paul M Clement; Roger Stupp; Michel Fabbro; Emilie Le Rhun; Francois Dubois; Michael Weller; Andreas von Deimling; Vassilis Golfinopoulos; Jacoline C Bromberg; Michael Platten; Martin Klein; Martin J van den Bent Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael Brada; Sally Stenning; Rhian Gabe; Lindsay C Thompson; David Levy; Roy Rampling; Sara Erridge; Frank Saran; Rao Gattamaneni; Kirsten Hopkins; Sarah Beall; V Peter Collins; Siow-Ming Lee Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R H Dahlrot; J Dowsett; S Fosmark; A Malmström; R Henriksson; H Boldt; K de Stricker; M D Sørensen; H S Poulsen; M Lysiak; P Söderkvist; J Rosell; S Hansen; B W Kristensen Journal: Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol Date: 2017-06-28 Impact factor: 8.090
Authors: Cristiane M Ida; Malinda L Butz; Robert B Jenkins; Jann N Sarkaria; Gaspar J Kitange; Caterina Giannini; Benjamin R Kipp Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Volker Hovestadt; Marc Remke; Marcel Kool; Torsten Pietsch; Paul A Northcott; Roger Fischer; Florence M G Cavalli; Vijay Ramaswamy; Marc Zapatka; Guido Reifenberger; Stefan Rutkowski; Matthias Schick; Melanie Bewerunge-Hudler; Andrey Korshunov; Peter Lichter; Michael D Taylor; Stefan M Pfister; David T W Jones Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Giuseppe Minniti; Sergio Paolini; Marie Lise Jaffrain Rea; Andrea Isidori; Claudia Scaringi; Ivana Russo; Mattia Falchetto Osti; Luigi Cavallo; Vincenzo Esposito Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Philipp Karschnia; Nico Teske; Mario M Dorostkar; Sebastian Siller; Jonathan Weller; Joachim M Baehring; Jorg Dietrich; Louisa von Baumgarten; Jochen Herms; Joerg-Christian Tonn; Niklas Thon Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ngan Nguyen; Jordan Redfield; Matthew Ballo; Madison Michael; Jeffrey Sorenson; Daniel Dibaba; Jim Wan; Glenda Delgado Ramos; Manjari Pandey Journal: CNS Oncol Date: 2021-09-06
Authors: Stephen J Bagley; Jacob Till; Aseel Abdalla; Hareena K Sangha; Stephanie S Yee; Jake Freedman; Taylor A Black; Jasmin Hussain; Zev A Binder; Steven Brem; Arati S Desai; Donald M O'Rourke; Qi Long; Seyed Ali Nabavizadeh; Erica L Carpenter Journal: Neurooncol Adv Date: 2021-01-16