- Department of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
- Department of Pathology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
- Section of Neurological Surgery, Operative Care Division, Portland Veterans Administration Hospital, Portland, OR, USA
Correspondence Address:
Donald A. Ross
Department of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
Section of Neurological Surgery, Operative Care Division, Portland Veterans Administration Hospital, Portland, OR, USA
DOI:10.4103/2152-7806.138034
Copyright: © 2014 Mendez G. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.How to cite this article: Mendez G, Ozpinar A, Raskin J, Gultekin SH, Ross DA. Case comparison and literature review of glioblastoma: A tale of two tumors. Surg Neurol Int 02-Aug-2014;5:121
How to cite this URL: Mendez G, Ozpinar A, Raskin J, Gultekin SH, Ross DA. Case comparison and literature review of glioblastoma: A tale of two tumors. Surg Neurol Int 02-Aug-2014;5:121. Available from: http://sni.wpengine.com/surgicalint_articles/case-comparison-and-literature-review-of-glioblastoma-a-tale-of-two-tumors/
Abstract
Background:Diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) includes a heterogeneous group of tumors. We describe two cases with histopathologically and molecularly similar tumors, but very different outcomes. We attempt to illustrate the need for improved prognostic markers for GBM.
Case Description:Two patients with similar molecular profiles were retrospectively identified. The following markers were assessed: O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) methylation, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1 and 2 status, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) amplification, phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) status, Ki-67, p53, and 1p/19q status. Each patient was assigned a Karnofsky performance score at presentation. Case 1 (62-year-old male) was a right temporal lobe glioblastoma with a molecular profile of amplified EGFR, normal PTEN, no IDH1/2 mutation, 28.7% MGMT promoter methylation, 5-20% Ki-67, 1p deletion, and 19q intact. The patient underwent resection followed by radiation therapy and 2 years of chemotherapy, and was asymptomatic and tumor free 5 years post diagnosis. Tumor eventually recurred and the patient expired 72 months after initial diagnosis. Case 2 (63-year-old male) was a right frontal white matter mass consistent with glioblastoma with a molecular profile of amplified EGFR, absent PTEN, no IDH1/2 mutation, 9.9% MGMT promoter methylation, 5-10% Ki-67, and 1p/19q status inconclusive. A radical subtotal resection was performed; however, 2 weeks later symptoms had returned. Subsequent imaging revealed a tumor larger than at diagnosis. The patient expired 3 months after initial diagnosis.
Conclusion:The need for formulating more robust means to classify GBM tumor subtypes is paramount. Standard histopathologic and molecular analyses are costly and did not provide either of these patients with a realistic appraisal of their prognosis. Individualized whole genome testing similar to that being reported for medulloblastoma and other tumors may be preferable to the array of tests as currently utilized.
Keywords: 1p/19q deletion, epidermal growth factor receptor amplification, glioblastoma, isocitrate dehydrogenase1, isocitrate dehydrogenase1 mutation, O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase methylation and expression, prognosis, phosphatase and tensin homolog deletion
INTRODUCTION
While astrocytoma grade IV or glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a defined histopathologic diagnosis,[
Here we describe two patients with histopathologically and molecularly similar tumors, but very different outcomes. We attempt to illustrate the need for a wider range of GBM molecular markers as is the case for individualized whole genome testing reported for medulloblastoma.[
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Tumor molecular characterization
Histopathologic analysis and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining were performed by the Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) Pathology Department, Section of Neuropathology. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays were performed by the OHSU Knight Diagnostic Laboratories (KDL) Research Cytogenetics Laboratory and mutation analyses and methylation assays were completed by the OHSU KDL.
IDH1, IDH2 status
DNA was extracted and purified from paraffin-embedded tumor tissue. Exon 2 of the IDH1 gene and exon 4 of the IDH2 gene were amplified by polymerized chain reaction (PCR) and the product subjected to single-strand sequencing on a pyrosequencer (Biotage, Charlotte, NC, USA). The estimated sensitivity of this method is detection of mutations in IDH1 even if just 5% of mutant alleles are available in the DNA sample.[
MGMT methylation status
DNA was extracted from paraffin-embedded tumor samples with subsequent pyrosequencer-based analysis of 10 cytosine-phosphate-guanine (CpG) sites. The pyrosequencing method used by the OHSU Pathology Translational Research Laboratory is modified from Dunn.[
Glioma FISH panel
EGFR/CEP7 probe set was used to identify EGFR amplification. Fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue was treated according to standard protocols and 100-200 interphase cells were scored. Institutional cutoff for amplification was ≥2.2 EGFR: CEP7. 1p/19q deletion status was evaluated by using 1p36, 1q25 probes for chromosome 1p, and 19q13, and 19p13 probes were used to test for deletion of chromosome 19q or monosomy of chromosome 19. PTEN/CEP10 was used to identify chromosome 10q deletion or monosomy 10. Ki-67 and p53 IHC stains were performed as detailed by Pallini et al. in 2008.[
Literature review
A United States National Library of Medicine/Medline/PubMed search was conducted to identify studies focusing on association of molecular marker expression and prognosis in GBM. Search terms included: Glioblastoma, grade IV astrocytoma, IDH mutation, MGMT expression and/or methylation, EGFR amplification, 1p/19q status, and PTEN deletion. Articles related to lower-grade brain malignancy, smaller institutional experiences, or studies not found in peer-reviewed journals were excluded. In reviewing pertinent articles, focus was placed on papers providing survival projections based on specific molecular markers, papers defining molecular characteristics of high-grade gliomas, and meta-analyses.
DISCUSSION
Although GBM is currently a histopathologic diagnosis, molecular classification schemes are pioneering a transition toward more accurate subtyping and prognostication. The future of the field has moved ever closer toward defining the oncogenetic signature, correlating genotype with phenotype, and ultimately attempting to tailor therapy to individual tumor marker expression. Verhaak's study on genomic analysis introduced four subsets of GBM: proneural, neural, classical, and mesenchymal.[
IDH1 and 2 are metabolic isozymes, which catalyze the conversion of isocitrate to α-ketoglutarate and produce reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) in the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle. IDH1 and IDH2 are also active outside the TCA cycle and are localized in the cytosol and peroxisome. The roles of these enzymes in gliomagenesis have yet to be elucidated. It has been posited that the high frequency of IDH mutation in secondary GBM, low-grade glioma, and oligodendrogliomas implies that IDH plays a role in early gliomagenesis. The shared high frequency of IDH mutation in lower-grade lesions may also suggest existence of a different stem cell that acts as a precursor to tumors of astrocytic and oligodendrocytic characteristics. A series of biopsies from the same glioma patients found that neither TP53 mutation nor 1p/19q co-deletion preceded IDH mutation, supporting the notion that IDH has an integral role in early events of gliomagenesis.[
A recent meta-analysis[
Favorable glioma survival figures have been a hallmark of patients with IDH mutations: improved OS [hazard ratio (HR) =0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-0.42; Pheterogeneity = 0.204] and PFS (HR = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.21-0.68; Pheterogeneity = 0.000).[
Susceptibility to alkylating chemotherapy is a key feature seen in gliomas with MGMT promoter region hypermethylation status.[
Another group defined a threshold for comparing survival in newly diagnosed GBM by using the median percentage of cells staining for MGMT protein in tumor samples. Looking at a retrospective cohort of 418 GBM subjects, patients with <30% staining had a PFS of 10.9 months and an OS of 20.5 months, compared with a PFS of 7.8 months (P < 0.0001) and an OS of 16.7 months (P < 0.0001) among patients with ≥ 30% staining.[
In addition to MGMT protein expression, it is important to consider epigenetic modifications to MGMT, e.g. CpG methylation status. Correlative studies have shown that patients with tumors displaying MGMT promoter hypermethylation or low expression of MGMT protein are more likely to benefit from TMZ treatment, when compared to patients with tumors displaying unmethylated MGMT or high MGMT expression.[
While the results of Dunn's[
Along with MGMT expression and gene methylation, one other area of study has focused on the interaction between MGMT and other biomarkers. German trials have probed the prognostic versus predictive role of MGMT as a function of either IDH or 1p/19q status. A study by Wick et al. found that in WHO grade III/IV gliomas, MGMT promoter methylation is prognostic for patients with IDH1 mutations, conferring longer PFS independent of treatment modality. In the cohort with WT IDH1, MGMT methylation proved to be a predictive marker of response to alkylating chemotherapy, but not prognostic of survival. In contrast, this type of relationship was absent when analyzing 1p/19q co-deletions and MGMT status.[
Prognosis based on EGFR gene amplification and/or EGFR overexpression continues to be debated, as some studies find direct association with poor prognosis[
While p53 is a well-documented tumor suppressor involved in various tumorigenesis processes, its role as a prognostic marker in GBM remains controversial. The role of p53 as a tumor suppressor is intimately linked to its involvement in apoptosis, cell cycle modulation, and metabolism. Just based on p53's known spectrum of activity, it would be reasonable for mutations of p53 in tumor cells to confer resistance to apoptosis. Conversely, it is conceivable that overexpression of WT p53 would enhance radiosensitivity of glioma cells. That said, multiple studies have demonstrated the difficulty of making such an assertion. In fact, the effect of p53 mutations on glioma sensitivity to radiation and chemotherapy remains inconclusive.[
CASE REPORTS
Case 1
A 62-year-old previously healthy male (Karnofsky = 100) presented with an account of riding his bicycle home from work and becoming lost and unable to recall approximately 1 hour of time. Subsequent evaluation for a likely partial complex seizure led to the discovery of a right temporal lobe mass. Stereotactic biopsy was consistent with a WHO Grade IV astrocytoma (glioblastoma). He underwent gross total resection confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) followed by adjuvant radiation therapy and 2 years of TMZ chemotherapy, per the Stupp protocol.[
Case 2
A 63-year-old previously healthy male developed headaches, personality changes, and disorientation (Karnofsky = 70). A 17.5 cm3, irregular, peripherally enhancing mass deep in the right frontal white matter with some extension into the corpus callosum was visible on brain MRI. A radical but subtotal resection was performed without complication, removing 77% of the mass and leaving a 4 cm3 mass in the lateral corpus callosum, and with marked improvement in symptoms. Karnofsky improved to 80 postoperatively, with some mild confusion. Pathology was consistent with WHO Grade IV astrocytoma (glioblastoma). Two weeks later, prior to a radiation oncology visit, his symptoms returned. Subsequent MRI revealed a tumor larger than that prior to surgery. Radiation and TMZ were started immediately, per the Stupp protocol.[
Both cases shared amplification of EGFR and an absence of IDH mutations. PTEN was normal in Case 1 and absent in Case 2. MGMT methylation was 28.7% in Case 1 and 9.9% in Case 2. Ki-67 proliferation marker was 5-20% in Case 1 and 5-10% in Case 2. Case 1 had 5-10% p53 and Case 2 had <5% p53. Case 1 showed a 1p deletion with 19q intact, while Case 2 had inconclusive status [
In reviewing the two cases presented, the molecular profiles were quite similar, with differences noted in PTEN status (Case 2 had complete absence of chromosome 10) and degree of MGMT promoter methylation (Case 1 had greater methylation). While presence of EGFR amplification and PTEN loss in Case 2 make it a candidate for classification as a classical GBM subtype, neither marker has been shown to definitively dictate outcome and, therefore, the rapid decline of Case 2 cannot be attributed solely to these molecular characteristics. In fact, a study of PTEN loss versus PTEN retained revealed no significant difference in outcome as the PTEN retained group had a median survival of 20.0 months and PTEN loss had a median survival of 18.2 months.[
We recognize one of the shortcomings of the study comparison is sample size, with molecular profiles that were not exactly the same. However, the cases shared similarities in critical markers and, as illustrated in
CONCLUSION
As evidenced by case comparison, the need for formulating more robust means to classify GBM tumor subtypes is paramount. Standard histopathologic analysis and molecular testing available for the two cases we present did not allow either patient a realistic appraisal of their prognosis, as is true for many patients. The problem of predicting life expectancy for patients with neurological malignancies is not unique to gliomas, as recent data suggest prognosis for patients with brain metastases is also quite uncertain.[
References
1. Last accessed on 2014 Feb 02. Available from: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ion/divisions/neuropathology/diagnostic_services/molecular_tests .
2. Baxendine-Jones J, Campbell I, Ellison D. p53 status has no prognostic significance in glioblastomas treated with radiotherapy. Clin Neuropathol. 1997. 16: 332-6
3. Brabender J, Usadel H, Metzger R, Schneider PM, Park J, Salonga D. Quantitative O (6)-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase methylation analysis in curatively resected non-small cell lung cancer: Associations with clinical outcome. Clin Cancer Res. 2003. 9: 223-7
4. Brat DJ, Parisi JE, Kleinschmidt-DeMasters BK, Yachnis AT, Montine TJ, Boyer PJ. Surgical neuropathology update: A review of changes introduced by the WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008. 132: 993-1007
5. Carico C, Nuno M, Mukherjee D, Elramsisy A, Dantis J, Hu J. Loss of PTEN is not associated with poor survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients of the temozolomide era. PLoS One. 2012. 7: e33684-
6. Chakravarti A, Seiferheld W, Tu X, Wang H, Zhang HZ, Ang KK. Immunohistochemically determined total epidermal growth factor receptor levels not of prognostic value in newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: Report from the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005. 62: 318-27
7. Choi Y, Song YJ, Lee HS, Hur WJ, Sung KH, Kim KU. Epidermal growth factor receptor is related to poor survival in glioblastomas: Single-institution experience. Yonsei Med J. 2013. 54: 101-7
8. Dunn J, Baborie A, Alam F, Joyce K, Moxham M, Sibson R. Extent of MGMT promoter methylation correlates with outcome in glioblastomas given temozolomide and radiotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2009. 101: 124-31
9. Etienne MC, Formento JL, Lebrun-Frenay C, Gioanni J, Chatel M, Paquis P. Epidermal growth factor receptor and labeling index are independent prognostic factors in glial tumor outcome. Clin Cancer Res. 1998. 4: 2383-90
10. Haas-Kogan DA, Yount G, Haas M, Levi D, Kogan SS, Hu L. p53-dependent G1 arrest and p53-independent apoptosis influence the radiobiologic response of glioblastoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996. 36: 95-103
11. Hartmann C, Hentschel B, Simon M, Westphal M, Schackert G, Tonn JC. Long-term survival in primary glioblastoma with versus without isocitrate dehydrogenase mutations. Clin Cancer Res. 2013. 19: 5146-57
12. Hegi ME, Diserens AC, Gorlia T, Hamou MF, de Tribolet N, Weller M. MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005. 352: 997-1003
13. Hobbs J, Nikiforova MN, Fardo DW, Bortoluzzi S, Cieply K, Hamilton RL. Paradoxical relationship between the degree of EGFR amplification and outcome in glioblastomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012. 36: 1186-93
14. Kim YW, Koul D, Kim SH, Lucio-Eterovic AK, Freire PR, Yao J. Identification of prognostic gene signatures of glioblastoma: A study based on TCGA data analysis. Neuro Oncol. 2013. 15: 829-39
15. Knudsen-Baas KM, Moen G, Fluge O, Storstein A. Pseudoprogression in high-grade glioma. Acta Neurol Scand Suppl. 2013. 196: 31-7
16. Koga Y, Kitajima Y, Miyoshi A, Sato K, Kitahara K, Soejima H. Tumor progression through epigenetic gene silencing of O (6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase in human biliary tract cancers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005. 12: 354-63
17. Komine C, Watanabe T, Katayama Y, Yoshino A, Yokoyama T, Fukushima T. Promoter hypermethylation of the DNA repair gene O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase is an independent predictor of shortened progression free survival in patients with low-grade diffuse astrocytomas. Brain Pathol. 2003. 13: 176-84
18. Kondziolka D, Parry PV, Lunsford LD, Kano H, Flickinger JC, Rakfal S. The accuracy of predicting survival in individual patients with cancer. J. Neurosurg. 2014. 120: 24-30
19. Kreth S, Thon N, Eigenbrod S, Lutz J, Ledderose C, Egensperger R. O-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) mRNA expression predicts outcome in malignant glioma independent of MGMT promoter methylation. PLoS One. 2011. 6: e17156-
20. Lalezari S, Chou AP, Tran A, Solis OE, Khanlou N, Chen W. Combined analysis of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase protein expression and promoter methylation provides optimized prognostication of glioblastoma outcome. Neuro Oncol. 2013. 15: 370-81
21. Leenstra S, Oskam NT, Bijleveld EH, Bosch DA, Troost D, Hulsebos TJ. Genetic sub-types of human malignant astrocytoma correlate with survival. Int J Cancer. 1998. 79: 159-65
22. Newcomb EW, Cohen H, Lee SR, Bhalla SK, Bloom J, Hayes RL. Survival of patients with glioblastoma multiforme is not influenced by altered expression of p16, p53, EGFR, MDM2 or Bcl-2 genes. Brain Pathol. 1998. 8: 655-67
23. Northcott PA, Jones DT, Kool M, Robinson GW, Gilbertson RJ, Cho YJ. Medulloblastomics: The end of the beginning. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012. 12: 818-34
24. Pallini R, Ricci-Vitiani L, Banna GL, Signore M, Lombardi D, Todaro M. Cancer stem cell analysis and clinical outcome in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Clin Cancer Res. 2008. 14: 8205-12
25. Quan AL, Barnett GH, Lee SY, Vogelbaum MA, Toms SA, Staugaitis SM. Epidermal growth factor receptor amplification does not have prognostic significance in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005. 63: 695-703
26. Robertson T, Koszyca B, Gonzales M. Overview and recent advances in neuropathology. Part 1: Central nervous system tumours. Pathology (Phila). 2011. 43: 88-92
27. Sanai N, Polley MY, McDermott MW, Parsa AT, Berger MS. An extent of resection threshold for newly diagnosed glioblastomas. J Neurosurg. 2011. 115: 3-8
28. Schiebe M, Ohneseit P, Hoffmann W, Meyermann R, Rodemann HP, Bamberg M. Analysis of mdm2 and p53 gene alterations in glioblastomas and its correlation with clinical factors. J Neurooncol. 2000. 49: 197-203
29. Setty P, Hammes J, Rothamel T, Vladimirova V, Kramm CM, Pietsch T. A pyrosequencing-based assay for the rapid detection of IDH1 mutations in clinical samples. J Mol Diagn. 2010. 12: 750-6
30. Shinojima N, Tada K, Shiraishi S, Kamiryo T, Kochi M, Nakamura H. Prognostic value of epidermal growth factor receptor in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Cancer Res. 2003. 63: 6962-70
31. Shiraishi S, Tada K, Nakamura H, Makino K, Kochi M, Saya H. Influence of p53 mutations on prognosis of patients with glioblastoma. Cancer. 2002. 95: 249-57
32. Silber JR, Bobola MS, Blank A, Chamberlain MC. O (6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase in glioma therapy: Promise and problems. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012. 1826: 71-82
33. Stupp R, Hegi ME, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, Taphoorn MJB, Janzer RC. Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009. 10: 459-66
34. Tada M, Matsumoto R, Iggo RD, Onimaru R, Shirato H, Sawamura Y. Selective sensitivity to radiation of cerebral glioblastomas harboring p53 mutations. Cancer Res. 1998. 58: 1793-7
35. Verhaak RG, Hoadley KA, Purdom E, Wang V, Qi Y, Wilkerson MD. Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell. 2010. 17: 98-110
36. Waha A, Baumann A, Wolf HK, Fimmers R, Neumann J, Kindermann D. Lack of prognostic relevance of alterations in the epidermal growth factor receptor-transforming growth factor-alpha pathway in human astrocytic gliomas. J Neurosurg. 1996. 85: 634-41
37. Watanabe T, Nobusawa S, Kleihues P, Ohgaki H. IDH1 mutations are early events in the development of astrocytomas and oligodendrogliomas. Am J Pathol. 2009. 174: 1149-53
38. Wick W, Meisner C, Hentschel B, Platten M, Schilling A, Wiestler B. Prognostic or predictive value of MGMT promoter methylation in gliomas depends on IDH1 mutation. Neurology. 2013. 81: 1515-22
39. Wiewrodt D, Nagel G, Dreimuller N, Hundsberger T, Perneczky A, Kaina B. MGMT in primary and recurrent human glioblastomas after radiation and chemotherapy and comparison with p53 status and clinical outcome. Int J Cancer. 2008. 122: 1391-9
40. Zhu A, Shaeffer J, Leslie S, Kolm P, El-Mahdi AM. Epidermal growth factor receptor: An independent predictor of survival in astrocytic tumors given definitive irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996. 34: 809-15
41. Zou P, Xu H, Chen P, Yan Q, Zhao L, Zhao P. IDH1/IDH2 mutations define the prognosis and molecular profiles of patients with gliomas: A meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013. 8: e68782-