4.6 Article

IDH/MGMT-driven molecular classification of low-grade glioma is a strong predictor for long-term survival

期刊

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 469-479

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nos317

关键词

biomarker; brain tumor; cancer pathways; prognosis

资金

  1. Swiss Cancer League [KLS 2765-02-2011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low-grade gliomas (LGGs) are rare brain neoplasms, with survival spanning up to a few decades. Thus, accurate evaluations on how biomarkers impact survival among patients with LGG require long-term studies on samples prospectively collected over a long period. The 210 adult LGGs collected in our databank were screened for IDH1 and IDH2 mutations (IDHmut), MGMT gene promoter methylation (MGMTmet), 1p/19q loss of heterozygosity (1p19qloh), and nuclear TP53 immunopositivity (TP53pos). Multivariate survival analyses with multiple imputation of missing data were performed using either histopathology or molecular markers. Both models were compared using Akaikes information criterion (AIC). The molecular model was reduced by stepwise model selection to filter out the most critical predictors. A third model was generated to assess for various marker combinations. Molecular parameters were better survival predictors than histology (AIC 12.5, P .001). Forty-five percent of studied patients died. MGMTmet was positively associated with IDHmut (P .001). In the molecular model with marker combinations, IDHmut/MGMTmet combined status had a favorable impact on overall survival, compared with IDHwt (hazard ratio [HR] 0.33, P .01), and even more so the triple combination, IDHmut/MGMTmet/1p19qloh (HR 0.18, P .001). Furthermore, IDHmut/MGMTmet/TP53pos triple combination was a significant risk factor for malignant transformation (HR 2.75, P .05). By integrating networks of activated molecular glioma pathways, the model based on genotype better predicts prognosis than histology and, therefore, provides a more reliable tool for standardizing future treatment strategies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据