4.6 Article

Interplay among BRAF, p16, p53, and MIB1 in pediatric low-grade gliomas

Journal

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages 777-789

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nos077

Keywords

BRAF; MIB1; p16; p53; V600E

Funding

  1. Callie Rohr American Brain Tumor Association
  2. National Institutes of Health [K08 CA155764-01A1, R01N537704]
  3. University of Kentucky College of Medicine
  4. Pediatric Low-Grade Glioma Initiative

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BRAF rearrangements and BRAF V600E point mutations are recurring events in pediatric low-grade gliomas. However, their clinical significance, including possible interactions between these markers and other glioma biomarkers, is unclear. In this study a retrospective cohort of 198 pediatric low-grade gliomas (including 40 treated with adjuvant therapy) was analyzed for BRAF rearrangements, BRAF V600E, p16/CDKN2A deletion, p53 expression, and MIB1 proliferation index. In tumors with BRAF rearrangement, homozygous p16 deletion correlated with shorter progression-free survival (P = .04). A high MIB1 proliferation index trended toward worse response to adjuvant radiotherapy compared to BRAF-rearranged, p16-intact tumors (P = .08). On multivariate analysis, the 2 most consistently powerful independent adverse prognostic markers were midline location (P = .0001) and p16 deletion (P = .03). Tumors with BRAF V600E had a strong trend toward an increased risk for progression (hazard ratio = 2.48, P = .07), whereas those with BRAF rearrangement had a milder trend toward reduced risk (hazard ratio = .54, P = .15). These data suggest that p16 deletion adversely impacts the outcomes of BRAF-driven gliomas, that high proliferation index may be a better marker of progression risk than BRAF, that BRAF rearrangement and BRAF V600E might not necessarily produce comparable outcomes, and that none of these markers is stronger than tumor location in determining prognosis in pediatric low-grade gliomas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available