4.3 Article

Combination genetic signature stratifies lower-grade gliomas better than histological grade

Journal

ONCOTARGET
Volume 6, Issue 25, Pages 20885-20901

Publisher

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.4928

Keywords

Pathology Section; glioma; IDH1/2; 1p/19q; TERT; EGFR

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation of China [81172412]
  2. Health and Medical Research Fund of Hong Kong [02133146]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We studied if combination genetic signature potentially stratifies lower-grade gliomas better than histology by investigating 214 lower-grade gliomas for IDH1/2 and TERTp mutations, 1p/19q codeletion and EGFR amplification as to their impact on prognostication. Prognostic association of grading was independent of other prognostic variables including age, histological type, IDH1/2, 1p/19q and TERTp status. No single marker, including IDH1/2, superseded grading in prognostication, indicating grading was still a very important tool. Prognosis was most favorable in 31.7% of patients with IDH1/2 mutation and either 1p/19q codeletion or TERTp mutation (IDHmut-OT), intermediate in 45.8% of patients with IDH1/2 mutation only (IDHmut) and 16.9% of patients without any of the alterations (IDHwt), and poorest in 5.6% of patients with wild-type IDH1/2 and either TERTp mutation or EGFR amplification (IDHwt-ET). Our results suggested not all IDH1/2 wild-type lower-grade gliomas are aggressive and additional biomarkers are required to identify glioblastoma-equivalent tumors. Multivariate analysis revealed independent prognostic values of grading and genetic signature. Grade II IDHwt-ET gliomas exhibited shorter survival than IDH1/2 mutated grade III gliomas, suggesting combination genetic signature potentially superseded grading in prognostication. In summary, biomarker-based stratification is useful in the diagnosis and prognostication of lower-grade gliomas, and should be used together with grading.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available