| Literature DB >> 35453544 |
Dorothee Hölzl1, Georg Hutarew1, Barbara Zellinger1, Beate Alinger-Scharinger1, Hans U Schlicker1, Christoph Schwartz2, Karl Sotlar1, Theo F J Kraus1.
Abstract
Gliomas are the most common intrinsic brain tumors in adults, and in accordance with their clinical behavior and patients' outcome, they are graded by the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of brain tumors. One very interesting candidate for targeted tumor therapy may be epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) amplification. Here, we performed an integrated comparative analysis of EGFR amplification in 34 glioma samples using standard fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and Illumina EPIC Infinium Methylation Bead Chip and correlated results with molecular glioma hallmarks. We found that the EPIC analysis showed the same power of detecting EGFR amplification compared with FISH. EGFR amplification was detectable in high-grade gliomas (25%). Moreover, EGFR amplification was found to be present solely in IDH wildtype gliomas (26%) and TERT mutated gliomas (27%), occurring independently of MGMT promoter methylation status and being mutually exclusive with 1p/19q codeletion (LOH). In summary, EPIC Bead Chip analysis is a reliable tool for detecting EGFR amplification and is comparable with the standard method FISH. EGFR amplification is a phenomenon of IDH wildtype TERT mutated high-grade gliomas.Entities:
Keywords: EGFR; EPIC DNA methylation analysis; FISH; glioblastoma; glioma
Year: 2022 PMID: 35453544 PMCID: PMC9033057 DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10040794
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomedicines ISSN: 2227-9059
Details on glioma samples. Indicated are details on analyzed samples including age, sex, EGFR analysis, and molecular genetic hallmarks. n.a.: not available, wt: wildtype, u unmethylated, m: methylated, d: deleted, n: not deleted.
| ID | Diagnosis | Grade | Age (y) | Sex | FISH | EPIC | IHC |
|
| 1p/19q |
|
| MGMT |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T01 | Pilocytic astrocytoma | 1 | 38 | f | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0 | wt | wt | n.a. | wt | n.a. | u | n |
| T02 | Pilocytic astrocytoma | 1 | 16 | m | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0 | wt | wt | n.a. | wt | n.a. | u | n |
| T03 | Oligod. | 2 | 27 | m | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1 | R132H | wt | 1p/19q | C228T | n.a. | m | n |
| T04 | Oligod. | 2 | 63 | f | 1.00 | 0.00 | n.a. | R132H | wt | 1p/19q | C250T | n.a. | m | n |
| T05 | Astrocytoma | 2 | 47 | m | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0 | R132S | wt | wt | wt | n.a. | u | n |
| T06 | Astrocytoma | 2 | 22 | m | 1.00 | 0.00 | n.a. | R132C | wt | wt | wt | n.a. | u | n |
| T07 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 47 | m | 9.20 | 0.98 | 3 | wt | wt | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | u | d |
| T08 | Astrocytoma | 4 | 37 | f | 1.00 | 0.32 | 1 | R132H | wt | wt | wt | n.a. | m | d |
| T09 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 70 | f | 1.00 | 0.00 | n.a. | wt | wt | n.a. | C250T | n.a. | m | d |
| T10 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 66 | m | 7.74 | 1.07 | 3 | wt | wt | n.a. | C228T | n.a. | m | d |
| T11 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 62 | m | 1.13 | 0.00 | n.a. | wt | wt | n.a. | C250T | n.a. | m | n |
| T12 | Astrocytoma | 4 | 45 | f | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1 | R132H | wt | wt | wt | n.a. | m | n |
| T13 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 77 | m | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0 | wt | wt | n.a. | C228T | n.a. | u | n |
| T14 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 74 | m | 8.32 | 0.94 | 3 | wt | wt | n.a. | C250T | n.a. | m | n |
| T15 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 43 | f | 1.08 | 0.24 | n.a. | wt | wt | n.a. | C250T | n.a. | u | n |
| T16 | Astrocytoma | 4 | 38 | m | 1.00 | 0.00 | n.a. | R132H | wt | wt | wt | n.a. | m | n |
| T17 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 26 | m | 1.20 | 0.00 | 0 | wt | wt | n.a. | wt | n.a. | u | n |
| T18 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 69 | m | 9.25 | 1.04 | 3 | wt | wt | n.a. | C228T | n.a. | m | d |
| T19 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 63 | f | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1 | wt | wt | n.a. | C250T | n.a. | m | d |
| T20 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 32 | m | 1.15 | 0.00 | 0 | wt | wt | 1p | C228T | n.a. | u | n |
| T21 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 72 | m | 1.15 | 0.00 | 0 | wt | wt | wt | C228T | n.a. | m | d |
| T22 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 79 | f | 9.4 | 1.12 | n.a. | wt | wt | wt | C228T | n.a. | u | d |
| T23 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 75 | f | 1.00 | 0.00 | n.a. | wt | wt | 1p | C250T | n.a. | u | d |
| T24 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 45 | f | 1.05 | 0.00 | 0 | wt | wt | n.a. | C228T | wt | m | n |
| T25 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 77 | f | 7.90 | 0.98 | 3 | wt | wt | n.a. | C228T | n.a. | u | d |
| T26 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 49 | m | 8.35 | 1.17 | n.a. | wt | wt | n.a. | C250T | n.a. | m | d |
| T27 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 25 | m | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0 | wt | wt | n.a. | wt | wt | u | n |
| T28 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 51 | m | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0 | wt | wt | n.a. | C250T | n.a. | m | d |
| T29 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 63 | f | 1.00 | 0.36 | 1 | wt | wt | n.a. | C250T | n.a. | m | d |
| T30 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 65 | f | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1 | wt | wt | n.a. | C228T | n.a. | m | d |
| T31 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 76 | f | 1.05 | 0.00 | 0 | wt | wt | n.a. | wt | n.a. | m | n |
| T32 | Glioblastoma | 4 | 72 | f | 1.00 | 0.12 | n.a. | wt | wt | n.a. | C250T | n.a. | u | d |
| T33 | Dif. midline glioma H3 K27 alt. | 4 | 38 | m | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0 | wt | wt | n.a. | C228T | K27M | u | n |
| T34 | Dif. midline glioma H3 K27 alt. | 4 | 33 | f | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0 | wt | wt | n.a. | wt | K27M | u | n |
Figure 1Detection of EGFR copy numbers in gliomas. Analysis of 34 glioma samples showed that it is possible to distinguish between EGFR non-amplification (e.g., sample T34) (a–d) and EGFR amplification (e.g., sample T25) (e–h) using FISH (b,f) and EPIC analysis (c,g). These findings also correlate with protein expression levels using IHC (d,h). HE: Hematoxylin–Eosin; FISH: fluorescence in situ hybridization; EPIC: Illumina Infinium EPIC Bead Chip; IHC: immunohistochemistry. Scale bars: 50 µm (a,d,e,h), 10 µm (b,f).
Figure 2Comparison of two different methodologies for EGFR amplification detection. Using both FISH (a) and EPIC analysis (b), we found seven samples with EGFR amplification. Cut-off values for EGFR amplification are indicated by a green line and were set according to French et al. to equal or greater than 2 for FISH [25] and according to Stichel et al. to a relative probe intensity of more than 0.6 for EPIC analysis [26]. The results are well in line with protein expression levels detected by immunohistochemistry (c) scored according to Avilés-Salas et al. [21]. Regression analysis showed good correlation of EGFR amplification using FISH and EPIC analysis as well as FISH and IHC and EPIC and IHC (d). Analysis of WHO Grade and EGFR status showed that EGFR amplification is a hallmark of high-grade CNS WHO Grade 4 gliomas using both FISH (e) and EPIC analysis (f) as well as IHC (g). All gliomas with EGFR amplification were of CNS WHO Grade 4 (h). #: not performed due to tissue limitation.
Figure 3Integrated analysis of EGFR amplification and molecular genetic hallmarks of glioma. Correlation of EGFR amplification and IDH status showed EGFR amplification in IDH wildtype gliomas using both FISH (a) and EPIC analysis (b) (p > 0.05, Student’s t-test), with 26% of IDH wildtype gliomas being EGFR amplified (c) and no EGFR amplified case in IDH mutated gliomas (d). In the case of TERT mutation status, we found that EGFR amplification occurs in TERT mutated cases using FISH (e) and EPIC analysis (f) (p > 0.05, Student’s t-test), with no EGFR amplified case in TERT wildtype gliomas (g) and 27% of EGFR amplified cases in TERT mutated gliomas (h). Analysis of EGFR amplification and MGMT methylation status showed no differences in EGFR amplification in MGMT methylated and unmethylated gliomas using FISH (i) and EPIC analysis (j) (p > 0.05, Student’s t-test), 19% of MGMT methylated cases (k), and 22% of MGMT unmethylated cases showing EGFR amplification (l). In terms of LOH 1p/19q EGFR amplification was found in gliomas without LOH 1p/19q using FISH (m) and EPIC analysis (n) (p > 0.05, Student’s t-test), with 11% of cases without LOH 1p/19q (o) and no case with LOH 1p/19q being EGFR amplified (p). wt: wildtype; m: methylated; u: unmethylated; LOH: loss of heterozygosity.