George S Stoyanov1, Emran Lyutfi2, Reneta Georgieva3, Radoslav Georgiev4, Deyan Dzhenkov5, Lilyana Petkova5, Borislav D Ivanov6, Ara Kaprelyan2, Peter Ghenev5. 1. Department of General and Clinical Pathology, Forensic Medicine and Deontology, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University Varna "Prof. Dr. Paraskev Stoyanov", Marin Drinov 55 Str, 9002, Varna, Bulgaria. georgi.geesh@gmail.com. 2. Department of Neurology and Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University Varna "Prof. Dr. Paraskev Stoyanov", Varna, Bulgaria. 3. Student, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University Varna "Prof. Dr. Paraskev Stoyanov", Varna, Bulgaria. 4. Department of Imaging Diagnostics, Interventional Radiology and Radiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University Varna "Prof. Dr. Paraskev Stoyanov", Varna, Bulgaria. 5. Department of General and Clinical Pathology, Forensic Medicine and Deontology, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University Varna "Prof. Dr. Paraskev Stoyanov", Marin Drinov 55 Str, 9002, Varna, Bulgaria. 6. Department of Clinical Medical Sciences, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University Varna "Prof. Dr. Paraskev Stoyanov", Varna, Bulgaria.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive central nervous system (CNS) tumor with astrocytic differentiation. The growth pattern of GBM mimics that of the precursor cell migration during the fetal development of the brain. Diaphanous homolog (Diaph3) has been established to play a role in both CNS maturation and cancer progression as it is required both for cell migration and division. Furthermore, Diaph3 has been shown to play a role in malignant disease progression through hyperactivation of the EGFR/MEK/ERK in loss of expression and its overexpression correlating to hyperactivity of the mTOR pathway, both of which are with a well-established role in GBM. Herein, we aimed at establishing the diagnostic role of Diaph3 immunohistochemistry expression patterns in GBM and their possible implications for molecular response to different therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study utilized a retrospective nonclinical approach. Results of Diaph3 immunohistochemical expression were compared to healthy controls and reactive gliosis and statistically analyzed for correlation with neuroradiological tumor parameters and patient survival. RESULTS: Healthy controls showed individual weakly positive cells, while reactive gliosis controls showed a strong expression in astrocytic projections. GBM samples showed a heterogeneous positive reaction to Diaph3, mean number of positive cells 62.66%, median 61.5, range 12-96%. Areas of migrating cells showed a strong diffuse cytoplasmic reaction. Cells located in the tumor core and those in areas of submeningeal aggregation had no antibody expression. Statistical analysis revealed no correlation with tumor size or patient survival. CONCLUSION: The different expression pattern of Diaph3 in healthy controls, reactive gliosis and GBM shows promise as a clinical differentiating marker. Despite Diaph3 expression not correlating with survival and tumor size in GBM, there is an accumulating body of evidence that Diaph3 correlates with mTOR activity and can thus be used as a predictor for response to rapamycin and taxanes, clinical studies of which have shown promising, if mixed results in GBM.
INTRODUCTION: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive central nervous system (CNS) tumor with astrocytic differentiation. The growth pattern of GBM mimics that of the precursor cell migration during the fetal development of the brain. Diaphanous homolog (Diaph3) has been established to play a role in both CNS maturation and cancer progression as it is required both for cell migration and division. Furthermore, Diaph3 has been shown to play a role in malignant disease progression through hyperactivation of the EGFR/MEK/ERK in loss of expression and its overexpression correlating to hyperactivity of the mTOR pathway, both of which are with a well-established role in GBM. Herein, we aimed at establishing the diagnostic role of Diaph3 immunohistochemistry expression patterns in GBM and their possible implications for molecular response to different therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study utilized a retrospective nonclinical approach. Results of Diaph3 immunohistochemical expression were compared to healthy controls and reactive gliosis and statistically analyzed for correlation with neuroradiological tumor parameters and patient survival. RESULTS: Healthy controls showed individual weakly positive cells, while reactive gliosis controls showed a strong expression in astrocytic projections. GBM samples showed a heterogeneous positive reaction to Diaph3, mean number of positive cells 62.66%, median 61.5, range 12-96%. Areas of migrating cells showed a strong diffuse cytoplasmic reaction. Cells located in the tumor core and those in areas of submeningeal aggregation had no antibody expression. Statistical analysis revealed no correlation with tumor size or patient survival. CONCLUSION: The different expression pattern of Diaph3 in healthy controls, reactive gliosis and GBM shows promise as a clinical differentiating marker. Despite Diaph3 expression not correlating with survival and tumor size in GBM, there is an accumulating body of evidence that Diaph3 correlates with mTOR activity and can thus be used as a predictor for response to rapamycin and taxanes, clinical studies of which have shown promising, if mixed results in GBM.
Authors: Daniel J Brat; Kenneth Aldape; Howard Colman; Dominique Figrarella-Branger; Gregory N Fuller; Caterina Giannini; Eric C Holland; Robert B Jenkins; Bette Kleinschmidt-DeMasters; Takashi Komori; Johan M Kros; David N Louis; Catriona McLean; Arie Perry; Guido Reifenberger; Chitra Sarkar; Roger Stupp; Martin J van den Bent; Andreas von Deimling; Michael Weller Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Christina H Wang; Jason K Rockhill; Maciej Mrugala; Danielle L Peacock; Albert Lai; Katy Jusenius; Joanna M Wardlaw; Timothy Cloughesy; Alexander M Spence; Russ Rockne; Ellsworth C Alvord; Kristin R Swanson Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Rashmi Patnayak; Amitabh Jena; Bodagala Vijaylaxmi; Amancharla Y Lakshmi; Bcm Prasad; Amit Kumar Chowhan; N Rukmangadha; Bobbit V Phaneendra; Mandyam Kumaraswamy Reddy Journal: South Asian J Cancer Date: 2013-10
Authors: David N Louis; Arie Perry; Pieter Wesseling; Daniel J Brat; Ian A Cree; Dominique Figarella-Branger; Cynthia Hawkins; H K Ng; Stefan M Pfister; Guido Reifenberger; Riccardo Soffietti; Andreas von Deimling; David W Ellison Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 13.029
Authors: Sune Munthe; Mia D Sørensen; Mads Thomassen; Mark Burton; Torben A Kruse; Justin D Lathia; Frantz Rom Poulsen; Bjarne Winther Kristensen Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: J P Zepecki; K M Snyder; M M Moreno; E Fajardo; A Fiser; J Ness; A Sarkar; S A Toms; N Tapinos Journal: Oncogene Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Bernardo Cacho-Díaz; Donovan R García-Botello; Talia Wegman-Ostrosky; Gervith Reyes-Soto; Elizabeth Ortiz-Sánchez; Luis Alonso Herrera-Montalvo Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 5.531