Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tumors of the Central Nervous System

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Practical Oncologic Molecular Pathology

Part of the book series: Practical Anatomic Pathology ((PAP))

  • 1754 Accesses

Abstract

Key molecular parameters are now integrated into brain tumor diagnostics and are an integral part of the classification of primary tumors of the central nervous system. The standard of care for brain tumor diagnostics is now based on the integration of histomorphology and molecular-genetic alterations. Such an integration has resulted in more biologically cohesive entities. Important changes in the classification of infiltrating gliomas, ependymomas, and embryonal neoplasms are already codified in the revised fourth edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Central Nervous System Tumours, and many more are expected in the next edition following the rapid elucidation of diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive genomic underpinnings of central nervous system neoplasia. In this chapter we discuss how molecular signatures inform brain tumor diagnostics and highlight the contemporary use of biomarkers to diagnose and/or grade diffuse gliomas, ependymomas, and embryonal tumors, all of which have seen major reclassification within the past decade. We also address important genomic findings of several other brain and spinal cord tumors, including meningiomas, solitary fibrous tumors, melanocytic neoplasms, and craniopharyngiomas. We also discuss the different molecular methods and testing platforms that are commonly utilized by neuropathologists in daily practice. Expected changes in the upcoming classification as presented by the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy – Not Official WHO (cIMPACT-NOW) are noted as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Louis DN, Perry A, Burger P, et al. International society of neuropathology – Haarlem consensus guidelines for nervous system tumor classification and grading. Brain Pathol. 2014;24(5):429–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Cavenee WKE. WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Revised 4th ed. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, et al. The 2016 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131(6):803–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Velazquez Vega JE, Brat DJ. Incorporating advances in molecular pathology into brain tumor diagnostics. Adv Anat Pathol. 2018;25(3):143–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Spino M, Snuderl M. Genomic molecular classification of CNS malignancies. Adv Anat Pathol. 2020;27(1):44–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Capper D, Jones DTW, Sill M, et al. DNA methylation-based classification of central nervous system tumours. Nature. 2018;555(7697):469–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Capper D, Stichel D, Sahm F, et al. Practical implementation of DNA methylation and copy-number-based CNS tumor diagnostics: the Heidelberg experience. Acta Neuropathol. 2018;136(2):181–210.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Sahm F, Reuss DE, Giannini C, WHO 2016 Classification: changes and advancements in the diagnosis of miscellaneous primary CNS tumours. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol . 2018;44(2):163–71.

    Google Scholar 

  9. van den Bent MJ. Interobserver variation of the histopathological diagnosis in clinical trials on glioma: a clinician’s perspective. Acta Neuropathol. 2010;120(3):297–304.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Iorgulescu JB, Torre M, Harary M, et al. The misclassification of diffuse gliomas: rates and outcomes. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25:2656.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Sahm F, Reuss D, Koelsche C, et al. Farewell to oligoastrocytoma: in situ molecular genetics favor classification as either oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma. Acta Neuropathol. 2014;128(4):551–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hinrichs BH, Newman S, Appin CL, et al. Farewell to GBM-O: genomic and transcriptomic profiling of glioblastoma with oligodendroglioma component reveals distinct molecular subgroups. Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2016;4:4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Louis DN, Aldape K, Brat DJ, et al. Announcing cIMPACT-NOW: the consortium to inform molecular and practical approaches to CNS tumor taxonomy. Acta Neuropathol. 2017;133(1):1–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Louis DN, Aldape K, Brat DJ, et al. cIMPACT-NOW (the consortium to inform molecular and practical approaches to CNS tumor taxonomy): a new initiative in advancing nervous system tumor classification. Brain Pathol. 2017;27(6):851–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Camelo-Piragua S, Jansen M, Ganguly A, Kim JC, Louis DN, Nutt CL. Mutant IDH1-specific immunohistochemistry distinguishes diffuse astrocytoma from astrocytosis. Acta Neuropathol. 2010;119(4):509–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Parsons DW, Jones S, Zhang X, et al. An integrated genomic analysis of human glioblastoma multiforme. Science. 2008;321(5897):1807–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Yan H, Parsons DW, Jin G, et al. IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in gliomas. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(8):765–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 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(4):1149–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Dang L, White DW, Gross S, et al. Cancer-associated IDH1 mutations produce 2-hydroxyglutarate. Nature. 2009;462(7274):739–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Dang L, Yen K, Attar EC. IDH mutations in cancer and progress toward development of targeted therapeutics. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(4):599–608.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Xu W, Yang H, Liu Y, et al. Oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate is a competitive inhibitor of alpha-ketoglutarate-dependent dioxygenases. Cancer Cell. 2011;19(1):17–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang HY, Tang K, Liang TY, et al. The comparison of clinical and biological characteristics between IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in gliomas. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2016;35:86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Lu C, Ward PS, Kapoor GS, et al. IDH mutation impairs histone demethylation and results in a block to cell differentiation. Nature. 2012;483(7390):474–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Noushmehr H, Weisenberger DJ, Diefes K, et al. Identification of a CpG island methylator phenotype that defines a distinct subgroup of glioma. Cancer Cell. 2010;17(5):510–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Turcan S, Rohle D, Goenka A, et al. IDH1 mutation is sufficient to establish the glioma hypermethylator phenotype. Nature. 2012;483(7390):479–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Cancer Genome Atlas Research N, Brat DJ, Verhaak RG, et al. Comprehensive, integrative genomic analysis of diffuse lower-grade gliomas. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(26):2481–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Eckel-Passow JE, Lachance DH, Molinaro AM, et al. Glioma groups based on 1p/19q, IDH, and TERT promoter mutations in tumors. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(26):2499–508.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Balss J, Meyer J, Mueller W, Korshunov A, Hartmann C, von Deimling A. Analysis of the IDH1 codon 132 mutation in brain tumors. Acta Neuropathol. 2008;116(6):597–602.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hartmann C, Meyer J, Balss J, et al. Type and frequency of IDH1 and IDH2 mutations are related to astrocytic and oligodendroglial differentiation and age: a study of 1,010 diffuse gliomas. Acta Neuropathol. 2009;118(4):469–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Capper D, Zentgraf H, Balss J, Hartmann C, von Deimling A. Monoclonal antibody specific for IDH1 R132H mutation. Acta Neuropathol. 2009;118(5):599–601.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Banan R, Stichel D, Bleck A, et al. Infratentorial IDH-mutant astrocytoma is a distinct subtype. Acta Neuropathol. 2020;140(4):569–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chen L, Voronovich Z, Clark K, et al. Predicting the likelihood of an isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 or 2 mutation in diagnoses of infiltrative glioma. Neuro-Oncology. 2014;16(11):1478–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. DeWitt JC, Jordan JT, Frosch MP, et al. Cost-effectiveness of IDH testing in diffuse gliomas according to the 2016 WHO classification of tumors of the central nervous system recommendations. Neuro-Oncology. 2017;19(12):1640–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Robinson C, Kleinschmidt-DeMasters BK. IDH1-mutation in diffuse gliomas in persons age 55 years and over. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2017;76(2):151–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Olar A, Wani KM, Alfaro-Munoz KD, et al. IDH mutation status and role of WHO grade and mitotic index in overall survival in grade II-III diffuse gliomas. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;129(4):585–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Reuss DE, Mamatjan Y, Schrimpf D, et al. IDH mutant diffuse and anaplastic astrocytomas have similar age at presentation and little difference in survival: a grading problem for WHO. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;129(6):867–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Hartmann C, Hentschel B, Wick W, et al. Patients with IDH1 wild type anaplastic astrocytomas exhibit worse prognosis than IDH1-mutated glioblastomas, and IDH1 mutation status accounts for the unfavorable prognostic effect of higher age: implications for classification of gliomas. Acta Neuropathol. 2010;120(6):707–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cimino PJ, Zager M, McFerrin L, et al. Multidimensional scaling of diffuse gliomas: application to the 2016 World Health Organization classification system with prognostically relevant molecular subtype discovery. Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2017;5(1):39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Korshunov A, Casalini B, Chavez L, et al. Integrated molecular characterization of IDH-mutant glioblastomas. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2018;45:108.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Shirahata M, Ono T, Stichel D, et al. Novel, improved grading system(s) for IDH-mutant astrocytic gliomas. Acta Neuropathol. 2018;136(1):153–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Brat DJ, Aldape K, Colman H, et al. cIMPACT-NOW update 5: recommended grading criteria and terminologies for IDH-mutant astrocytomas. Acta Neuropathol. 2020;139(3):603–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Louis DN, Wesseling P, Aldape K, et al. cIMPACT-NOW update 6: new entity and diagnostic principle recommendations of the cIMPACT-Utrecht meeting on future CNS tumor classification and grading. Brain Pathol. 2020;30(4):844–56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Reifenberger J, Reifenberger G, Liu L, James CD, Wechsler W, Collins VP. Molecular genetic analysis of oligodendroglial tumors shows preferential allelic deletions on 19q and 1p. Am J Pathol. 1994;145(5):1175–90.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Cairncross JG, Ueki K, Zlatescu MC, et al. Specific genetic predictors of chemotherapeutic response and survival in patients with anaplastic oligodendrogliomas. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(19):1473–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Griffin CA, Burger P, Morsberger L, et al. Identification of der(1;19)(q10;p10) in five oligodendrogliomas suggests mechanism of concurrent 1p and 19q loss. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2006;65(10):988–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Jenkins RB, Blair H, Ballman KV, et al. A t(1;19)(q10;p10) mediates the combined deletions of 1p and 19q and predicts a better prognosis of patients with oligodendroglioma. Cancer Res. 2006;66(20):9852–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wesseling P, van den Bent M, Perry A. Oligodendroglioma: pathology, molecular mechanisms and markers. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;129(6):809–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Giannini C, Scheithauer BW, Weaver AL, et al. Oligodendrogliomas: reproducibility and prognostic value of histologic diagnosis and grading. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2001;60(3):248–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Aoki K, Nakamura H, Suzuki H, et al. Prognostic relevance of genetic alterations in diffuse lower-grade gliomas. Neuro-Oncology. 2018;20(1):66–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Halani SH, Yousefi S, Velazquez Vega J, et al. Multi-faceted computational assessment of risk and progression in oligodendroglioma implicates NOTCH and PI3K pathways. NPJ Precis Oncol. 2018;2:24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Brat DJ, Seiferheld WF, Perry A, et al. Analysis of 1p, 19q, 9p, and 10q as prognostic markers for high-grade astrocytomas using fluorescence in situ hybridization on tissue microarrays from radiation therapy oncology group trials. Neuro-Oncology. 2004;6(2):96–103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Clark KH, Villano JL, Nikiforova MN, Hamilton RL, Horbinski C. 1p/19q testing has no significance in the workup of glioblastomas. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2013;39(6):706–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Ball MK, Kollmeyer TM, Praska CE, et al. Frequency of false-positive FISH 1p/19q codeletion in adult diffuse astrocytic gliomas. Neurooncol Adv. 2020;2(1):vdaa109.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Reuss DE, Kratz A, Sahm F, et al. Adult IDH wild type astrocytomas biologically and clinically resolve into other tumor entities. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;130(3):407–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Reuss DE, Sahm F, Schrimpf D, et al. ATRX and IDH1-R132H immunohistochemistry with subsequent copy number analysis and IDH sequencing as a basis for an “integrated” diagnostic approach for adult astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma and glioblastoma. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;129(1):133–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Stichel D, Ebrahimi A, Reuss D, et al. Distribution of EGFR amplification, combined chromosome 7 gain and chromosome 10 loss, and TERT promoter mutation in brain tumors and their potential for the reclassification of IDHwt astrocytoma to glioblastoma. Acta Neuropathol. 2018;136(5):793–803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Brat DJ, Aldape K, Colman H, et al. cIMPACT-NOW update 3: recommended diagnostic criteria for “diffuse astrocytic glioma, IDH-wildtype, with molecular features of glioblastoma, WHO grade IV”. Acta Neuropathol. 2018;136(5):805–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Tesileanu CMS, Dirven L, Wijnenga MMJ, et al. Survival of diffuse astrocytic glioma, IDH1/2 wildtype, with molecular features of glioblastoma, WHO grade IV: a confirmation of the cIMPACT-NOW criteria. Neuro-Oncology. 2020;22(4):515–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Louis DN, Giannini C, Capper D, et al. cIMPACT-NOW update 2: diagnostic clarifications for diffuse midline glioma, H3 K27M-mutant and diffuse astrocytoma/anaplastic astrocytoma, IDH-mutant. Acta Neuropathol. 2018;135(4):639–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Lee J, Solomon DA, Tihan T. The role of histone modifications and telomere alterations in the pathogenesis of diffuse gliomas in adults and children. J Neuro-Oncol. 2017;132(1):1–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Solomon DA, Wood MD, Tihan T, et al. Diffuse midline gliomas with histone H3-K27M mutation: a series of 47 cases assessing the Spectrum of morphologic variation and associated genetic alterations. Brain Pathol. 2016;26(5):569–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Khuong-Quang DA, Buczkowicz P, Rakopoulos P, et al. K27M mutation in histone H3.3 defines clinically and biologically distinct subgroups of pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas. Acta Neuropathol. 2012;124(3):439–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Schwartzentruber J, Korshunov A, Liu XY, et al. Driver mutations in histone H3.3 and chromatin remodelling genes in paediatric glioblastoma. Nature. 2012;482(7384):226–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Wu G, Diaz AK, Paugh BS, et al. The genomic landscape of diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma and pediatric non-brainstem high-grade glioma. Nat Genet. 2014;46(5):444–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Schreck KC, Ranjan S, Skorupan N, et al. Incidence and clinicopathologic features of H3 K27M mutations in adults with radiographically-determined midline gliomas. J Neuro-Oncol. 2019;143(1):87–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Karremann M, Gielen GH, Hoffmann M, et al. Diffuse high-grade gliomas with H3 K27M mutations carry a dismal prognosis independent of tumor location. Neuro-Oncology. 2018;20(1):123–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Sturm D, Witt H, Hovestadt V, et al. Hotspot mutations in H3F3A and IDH1 define distinct epigenetic and biological subgroups of glioblastoma. Cancer Cell. 2012;22(4):425–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Meyronet D, Esteban-Mader M, Bonnet C, et al. Characteristics of H3 K27M-mutant gliomas in adults. Neuro-Oncology. 2017;19(8):1127–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Kleinschmidt-DeMasters BK, Mulcahy Levy JM. H3 K27M-mutant gliomas in adults vs. children share similar histological features and adverse prognosis. Clin Neuropathol. 2018;37(2):53–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Wang L, Li Z, Zhang M, et al. H3 K27M-mutant diffuse midline gliomas in different anatomical locations. Hum Pathol. 2018;78:89–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Venneti S, Santi M, Felicella MM, et al. A sensitive and specific histopathologic prognostic marker for H3F3A K27M mutant pediatric glioblastomas. Acta Neuropathol. 2014;128(5):743–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Korshunov A, Capper D, Reuss D, et al. Histologically distinct neuroepithelial tumors with histone 3 G34 mutation are molecularly similar and comprise a single nosologic entity. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131(1):137–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Korshunov A, Ryzhova M, Hovestadt V, et al. Integrated analysis of pediatric glioblastoma reveals a subset of biologically favorable tumors with associated molecular prognostic markers. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;129(5):669–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Gessi M, Gielen GH, Hammes J, et al. H3.3 G34R mutations in pediatric primitive neuroectodermal tumors of central nervous system (CNS-PNET) and pediatric glioblastomas: possible diagnostic and therapeutic implications? J Neuro-Oncol. 2013;112(1):67–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Neumann JE, Dorostkar MM, Korshunov A, et al. Distinct histomorphology in molecular subgroups of glioblastomas in young patients. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2016;75(5):408–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Yoshimoto K, Hatae R, Sangatsuda Y, et al. Prevalence and clinicopathological features of H3.3 G34-mutant high-grade gliomas: a retrospective study of 411 consecutive glioma cases in a single institution. Brain Tumor Pathol. 2017;34(3):103–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Haque F, Varlet P, Puntonet J, et al. Evaluation of a novel antibody to define histone 3.3 G34R mutant brain tumours. Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2017;5(1):45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Aldape K, Zadeh G, Mansouri S, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A. Glioblastoma: pathology, molecular mechanisms and markers. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;129(6):829–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Brandner S, von Deimling A. Diagnostic, prognostic and predictive relevance of molecular markers in gliomas. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2015;41(6):694–720.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Mansouri A, Hachem LD, Mansouri S, et al. MGMT promoter methylation status testing to guide therapy for glioblastoma: refining the approach based on emerging evidence and current challenges. Neuro Oncol. 2018;21:167.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Quillien V, Lavenu A, Ducray F, et al. Validation of the high-performance of pyrosequencing for clinical MGMT testing on a cohort of glioblastoma patients from a prospective dedicated multicentric trial. Oncotarget. 2016;7(38):61916–29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Yang P, Zhang W, Wang Y, et al. IDH mutation and MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma: results of a prospective registry. Oncotarget. 2015;6(38):40896–906.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Hegi ME, Diserens AC, Gorlia T, et al. MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(10):997–1003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Rivera AL, Pelloski CE, Gilbert MR, et al. MGMT promoter methylation is predictive of response to radiotherapy and prognostic in the absence of adjuvant alkylating chemotherapy for glioblastoma. Neuro-Oncology. 2010;12(2):116–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Wick W, Platten M, Meisner C, et al. Temozolomide chemotherapy alone versus radiotherapy alone for malignant astrocytoma in the elderly: the NOA-08 randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(7):707–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Weller M, Felsberg J, Hartmann C, et al. Molecular predictors of progression-free and overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a prospective translational study of the German glioma network. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(34):5743–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Stupp R, Hegi ME, Mason WP, et al. 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(5):459–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Hegi ME, Diserens AC, Godard S, et al. Clinical trial substantiates the predictive value of O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation in glioblastoma patients treated with temozolomide. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(6):1871–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Weller M, Stupp R, Reifenberger G, et al. MGMT promoter methylation in malignant gliomas: ready for personalized medicine? Nat Rev Neurol. 2010;6(1):39–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Appin CL, Brat DJ. Biomarker-driven diagnosis of diffuse gliomas. Mol Asp Med. 2015;45:87–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Christians A, Hartmann C, Benner A, et al. Prognostic value of three different methods of MGMT promoter methylation analysis in a prospective trial on newly diagnosed glioblastoma. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33449.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Tanboon J, Williams EA, Louis DN. The diagnostic use of immunohistochemical surrogates for signature molecular genetic alterations in gliomas. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2016;75(1):4–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Preusser M, Charles Janzer R, Felsberg J, et al. Anti-O6-methylguanine-methyltransferase (MGMT) immunohistochemistry in glioblastoma multiforme: observer variability and lack of association with patient survival impede its use as clinical biomarker. Brain Pathol. 2008;18(4):520–32.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Zhang J, Wu G, Miller CP, et al. Whole-genome sequencing identifies genetic alterations in pediatric low-grade gliomas. Nat Genet. 2013;45(6):602–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Jones DT, Hutter B, Jager N, et al. Recurrent somatic alterations of FGFR1 and NTRK2 in pilocytic astrocytoma. Nat Genet. 2013;45(8):927–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Collins VP, Jones DT, Giannini C. Pilocytic astrocytoma: pathology, molecular mechanisms and markers. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;129(6):775–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Packer RJ, Pfister S, Bouffet E, et al. Pediatric low-grade gliomas: implications of the biologic era. Neuro-Oncology. 2017;19(6):750–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Jones DTW, Kieran MW, Bouffet E, et al. Pediatric low-grade gliomas: next biologically driven steps. Neuro-Oncology. 2017;20:160.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Jones DT, Kocialkowski S, Liu L, et al. Tandem duplication producing a novel oncogenic BRAF fusion gene defines the majority of pilocytic astrocytomas. Cancer Res. 2008;68(21):8673–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Pfister S, Janzarik WG, Remke M, et al. BRAF gene duplication constitutes a mechanism of MAPK pathway activation in low-grade astrocytomas. J Clin Invest. 2008;118(5):1739–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Mackay A, Burford A, Carvalho D, et al. Integrated molecular meta-analysis of 1,000 pediatric high-grade and diffuse intrinsic Pontine glioma. Cancer Cell. 2017;32(4):520–537 e525.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Ryall S, Zapotocky M, Fukuoka K, et al. Integrated molecular and clinical analysis of 1,000 pediatric low-grade gliomas. Cancer Cell. 2020;37(4):569–583 e565.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Gierke M, Sperveslage J, Schwab D, et al. Analysis of IDH1-R132 mutation, BRAF V600 mutation and KIAA1549-BRAF fusion transcript status in central nervous system tumors supports pediatric tumor classification. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016;142(1):89–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Koelsche C, Sahm F, Capper D, et al. Distribution of TERT promoter mutations in pediatric and adult tumors of the nervous system. Acta Neuropathol. 2013;126(6):907–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Ryall S, Tabori U, Hawkins C. A comprehensive review of paediatric low-grade diffuse glioma: pathology, molecular genetics and treatment. Brain Tumor Pathol. 2017;34(2):51–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Ellison DW, Hawkins C, Jones DTW, et al. cIMPACT-NOW update 4: diffuse gliomas characterized by MYB, MYBL1, or FGFR1 alterations or BRAF(V600E) mutation. Acta Neuropathol. 2019;137(4):683–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Qaddoumi I, Orisme W, Wen J, et al. Genetic alterations in uncommon low-grade neuroepithelial tumors: BRAF, FGFR1, and MYB mutations occur at high frequency and align with morphology. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131(6):833–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Schindler G, Capper D, Meyer J, et al. Analysis of BRAF V600E mutation in 1,320 nervous system tumors reveals high mutation frequencies in pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, ganglioglioma and extra-cerebellar pilocytic astrocytoma. Acta Neuropathol. 2011;121(3):397–405.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Rodriguez FJ, Perry A, Rosenblum MK, et al. Disseminated oligodendroglial-like leptomeningeal tumor of childhood: a distinctive clinicopathologic entity. Acta Neuropathol. 2012;124(5):627–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Schniederjan MJ, Alghamdi S, Castellano-Sanchez A, et al. Diffuse leptomeningeal neuroepithelial tumor: 9 pediatric cases with chromosome 1p/19q deletion status and IDH1 (R132H) immunohistochemistry. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37(5):763–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Huse JT, Snuderl M, Jones DT, et al. Polymorphous low-grade neuroepithelial tumor of the young (PLNTY): an epileptogenic neoplasm with oligodendroglioma-like components, aberrant CD34 expression, and genetic alterations involving the MAP kinase pathway. Acta Neuropathol. 2017;133(3):417–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Johnson DR, Giannini C, Jenkins RB, Kim DK, Kaufmann TJ. Plenty of calcification: imaging characterization of polymorphous low-grade neuroepithelial tumor of the young. Neuroradiology. 2019;61(11):1327–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Slegers RJ, Blumcke I. Low-grade developmental and epilepsy associated brain tumors: a critical update 2020. Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2020;8(1):27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Bandopadhayay P, Ramkissoon LA, Jain P, et al. MYB-QKI rearrangements in angiocentric glioma drive tumorigenicity through a tripartite mechanism. Nat Genet. 2016;48(3):273–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Wefers AK, Stichel D, Schrimpf D, et al. Isomorphic diffuse glioma is a morphologically and molecularly distinct tumour entity with recurrent gene fusions of MYBL1 or MYB and a benign disease course. Acta Neuropathol. 2020;139(1):193–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Ida CM, Rodriguez FJ, Burger PC, et al. Pleomorphic Xanthoastrocytoma: natural history and long-term follow-up. Brain Pathol. 2015;25(5):575–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Weber RG, Hoischen A, Ehrler M, et al. Frequent loss of chromosome 9, homozygous CDKN2A/p14(ARF)/CDKN2B deletion and low TSC1 mRNA expression in pleomorphic xanthoastrocytomas. Oncogene. 2007;26(7):1088–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Vaubel R, Zschernack V, Tran QT, et al. Biology and grading of pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma-what have we learned about it? Brain Pathol. 2020;31:20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Vaubel RA, Caron AA, Yamada S, et al. Recurrent copy number alterations in low-grade and anaplastic pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma with and without BRAF V600E mutation. Brain Pathol. 2018;28(2):172–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Phillips JJ, Gong H, Chen K, et al. The genetic landscape of anaplastic pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma. Brain Pathol. 2019;29(1):85–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Alexandrescu S, Korshunov A, Lai SH, et al. Epithelioid glioblastomas and anaplastic epithelioid pleomorphic xanthoastrocytomas – same entity or first cousins? Brain Pathol. 2016;26(2):215–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Kleinschmidt-DeMasters BK, Aisner DL, Birks DK, Foreman NK. Epithelioid GBMs show a high percentage of BRAF V600E mutation. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37(5):685–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Korshunov A, Chavez L, Sharma T, et al. Epithelioid glioblastomas stratify into established diagnostic subsets upon integrated molecular analysis. Brain Pathol. 2018;28(5):656–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Xu J, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2009–2013. Neuro-Oncology. 2016;18(suppl_5):v1–v75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Renzi S, Michaeli O, Ramaswamy V, et al. Causes of death in pediatric neuro-oncology: the sickkids experience from 2000 to 2017. J Neuro-Oncol. 2020;149(1):181–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Fontebasso AM, Papillon-Cavanagh S, Schwartzentruber J, et al. Recurrent somatic mutations in ACVR1 in pediatric midline high-grade astrocytoma. Nat Genet. 2014;46(5):462–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Korshunov A, Schrimpf D, Ryzhova M, et al. H3-/IDH-wild type pediatric glioblastoma is comprised of molecularly and prognostically distinct subtypes with associated oncogenic drivers. Acta Neuropathol. 2017;134(3):507–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Guerreiro Stucklin AS, Ryall S, Fukuoka K, et al. Alterations in ALK/ROS1/NTRK/MET drive a group of infantile hemispheric gliomas. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):4343.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. Gilani A, Donson A, Davies KD, et al. Targetable molecular alterations in congenital glioblastoma. J Neuro-Oncol. 2020;146(2):247–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Viaene AN, Pu C, Perry A, Li MM, Luo M, Santi M. Congenital tumors of the central nervous system: an institutional review of 64 cases with emphasis on tumors with unique histologic and molecular characteristics. Brain Pathol. 2020;31:45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Clarke M, Mackay A, Ismer B, et al. Infant high-grade gliomas comprise multiple subgroups characterized by novel targetable gene fusions and favorable outcomes. Cancer Discov. 2020;10(7):942–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. Ellison DW, Aldape KD, Capper D, et al. cIMPACT-NOW update 7: advancing the molecular classification of ependymal tumors. Brain Pathol. 2020;30(5):863–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. Pajtler KW, Mack SC, Ramaswamy V, et al. The current consensus on the clinical management of intracranial ependymoma and its distinct molecular variants. Acta Neuropathol. 2017;133(1):5–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Pajtler KW, Witt H, Sill M, et al. Molecular classification of ependymal tumors across all CNS compartments, histopathological grades, and age groups. Cancer Cell. 2015;27(5):728–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Swanson AA, Raghunathan A, Jenkins RB, et al. Spinal cord ependymomas with MYCN amplification show aggressive clinical behavior. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2019;78(9):791–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Ghasemi DR, Sill M, Okonechnikov K, et al. MYCN amplification drives an aggressive form of spinal ependymoma. Acta Neuropathol. 2019;138(6):1075–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Raffeld M, Abdullaev Z, Pack SD, et al. High level MYCN amplification and distinct methylation signature define an aggressive subtype of spinal cord ependymoma. Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2020;8(1):101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Parker M, Mohankumar KM, Punchihewa C, et al. C11orf95-RELA fusions drive oncogenic NF-kappaB signalling in ependymoma. Nature. 2014;506(7489):451–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Pages M, Pajtler KW, Puget S, et al. Diagnostics of pediatric supratentorial RELA ependymomas: integration of information from histopathology, genetics, DNA methylation and imaging. Brain Pathol. 2019;29(3):325–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Figarella-Branger D, Lechapt-Zalcman E, Tabouret E, et al. Supratentorial clear cell ependymomas with branching capillaries demonstrate characteristic clinicopathological features and pathological activation of nuclear factor-kappaB signaling. Neuro-Oncology. 2016;18(7):919–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Witt H, Mack SC, Ryzhova M, et al. Delineation of two clinically and molecularly distinct subgroups of posterior fossa ependymoma. Cancer Cell. 2011;20(2):143–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Korshunov A, Witt H, Hielscher T, et al. Molecular staging of intracranial ependymoma in children and adults. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(19):3182–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Araki A, Chocholous M, Gojo J, et al. Chromosome 1q gain and tenascin-C expression are candidate markers to define different risk groups in pediatric posterior fossa ependymoma. Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2016;4(1):88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  144. Bayliss J, Mukherjee P, Lu C, et al. Lowered H3K27me3 and DNA hypomethylation define poorly prognostic pediatric posterior fossa ependymomas. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(366):366ra161.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  145. Panwalkar P, Clark J, Ramaswamy V, et al. Immunohistochemical analysis of H3K27me3 demonstrates global reduction in group-a childhood posterior fossa ependymoma and is a powerful predictor of outcome. Acta Neuropathol. 2017;134(5):705–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Ryall S, Guzman M, Elbabaa SK, et al. H3 K27M mutations are extremely rare in posterior fossa group a ependymoma. Childs Nerv Syst. 2017;33(7):1047–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Pajtler KW, Wen J, Sill M, et al. Molecular heterogeneity and CXorf67 alterations in posterior fossa group a (PFA) ependymomas. Acta Neuropathol. 2018;136(2):211–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  148. Ramaswamy V, Remke M, Bouffet E, et al. Risk stratification of childhood medulloblastoma in the molecular era: the current consensus. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131(6):821–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. Northcott PA, Korshunov A, Witt H, et al. Medulloblastoma comprises four distinct molecular variants. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(11):1408–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. Northcott PA, Robinson GW, Kratz CP, et al. Medulloblastoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019;5(1):11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Orr BA. Pathology, diagnostics, and classification of medulloblastoma. Brain Pathol. 2020;30(3):664–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  152. Ellison DW, Kocak M, Dalton J, et al. Definition of disease-risk stratification groups in childhood medulloblastoma using combined clinical, pathologic, and molecular variables. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(11):1400–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Clifford SC, Lusher ME, Lindsey JC, et al. Wnt/wingless pathway activation and chromosome 6 loss characterize a distinct molecular sub-group of medulloblastomas associated with a favorable prognosis. Cell Cycle. 2006;5(22):2666–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Northcott PA, Jones DT, Kool M, et al. Medulloblastomics: the end of the beginning. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12(12):818–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  155. Northcott PA, Shih DJ, Peacock J, et al. Subgroup-specific structural variation across 1,000 medulloblastoma genomes. Nature. 2012;488(7409):49–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  156. Zhukova N, Ramaswamy V, Remke M, et al. Subgroup-specific prognostic implications of TP53 mutation in medulloblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(23):2927–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Jones DT, Jager N, Kool M, et al. Dissecting the genomic complexity underlying medulloblastoma. Nature. 2012;488(7409):100–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Kool M, Jones DT, Jager N, et al. Genome sequencing of SHH medulloblastoma predicts genotype-related response to smoothened inhibition. Cancer Cell. 2014;25(3):393–405.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Northcott PA, Buchhalter I, Morrissy AS, et al. The whole-genome landscape of medulloblastoma subtypes. Nature. 2017;547(7663):311–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. Ellison DW, Dalton J, Kocak M, et al. Medulloblastoma: clinicopathological correlates of SHH, WNT, and non-SHH/WNT molecular subgroups. Acta Neuropathol. 2011;121(3):381–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Kool M, Korshunov A, Remke M, et al. Molecular subgroups of medulloblastoma: an international meta-analysis of transcriptome, genetic aberrations, and clinical data of WNT, SHH, group 3, and group 4 medulloblastomas. Acta Neuropathol. 2012;123(4):473–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. Remke M, Ramaswamy V, Peacock J, et al. TERT promoter mutations are highly recurrent in SHH subgroup medulloblastoma. Acta Neuropathol. 2013;126(6):917–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  163. Kaur K, Kakkar A, Kumar A, et al. Integrating molecular subclassification of medulloblastomas into routine clinical practice: a simplified approach. Brain Pathol. 2016;26(3):334–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Shih DJ, Northcott PA, Remke M, et al. Cytogenetic prognostication within medulloblastoma subgroups. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(9):886–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Northcott PA, Shih DJ, Remke M, et al. Rapid, reliable, and reproducible molecular sub-grouping of clinical medulloblastoma samples. Acta Neuropathol. 2012;123(4):615–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Hovestadt V, Remke M, Kool M, et al. Robust molecular subgrouping and copy-number profiling of medulloblastoma from small amounts of archival tumour material using high-density DNA methylation arrays. Acta Neuropathol. 2013;125(6):913–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Schwalbe EC, Williamson D, Lindsey JC, et al. DNA methylation profiling of medulloblastoma allows robust subclassification and improved outcome prediction using formalin-fixed biopsies. Acta Neuropathol. 2013;125(3):359–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Pietsch T, Haberler C. Update on the integrated histopathological and genetic classification of medulloblastoma - a practical diagnostic guideline. Clin Neuropathol. 2016;35(6):344–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Waszak SM, Northcott PA, Buchhalter I, et al. Spectrum and prevalence of genetic predisposition in medulloblastoma: a retrospective genetic study and prospective validation in a clinical trial cohort. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(6):785–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  170. Biegel JA, Rorke LB, Emanuel BS. Monosomy 22 in rhabdoid or atypical teratoid tumors of the brain. N Engl J Med. 1989;321(13):906.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. Biegel JA, Rorke LB, Packer RJ, Emanuel BS. Monosomy 22 in rhabdoid or atypical tumors of the brain. J Neurosurg. 1990;73(5):710–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Rorke LB, Packer RJ, Biegel JA. Central nervous system atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors of infancy and childhood: definition of an entity. J Neurosurg. 1996;85(1):56–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. Biegel JA. Molecular genetics of atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor. Neurosurg Focus. 2006;20(1):E11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Johann PD, Erkek S, Zapatka M, et al. Atypical teratoid/Rhabdoid tumors are comprised of three epigenetic subgroups with distinct enhancer landscapes. Cancer Cell. 2016;29(3):379–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Fossey M, Li H, Afzal S, et al. Atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor in the first year of life: the Canadian ATRT registry experience and review of the literature. J Neuro-Oncol. 2017;132(1):155–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  176. Lafay-Cousin L, Hawkins C, Carret AS, et al. Central nervous system atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumours: the Canadian paediatric brain tumour consortium experience. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(3):353–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. Chbani L, Guillou L, Terrier P, et al. Epithelioid sarcoma: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical analysis of 106 cases from the French sarcoma group. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;131(2):222–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Judkins AR, Mauger J, Ht A, Rorke LB, Biegel JA. Immunohistochemical analysis of hSNF5/INI1 in pediatric CNS neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28(5):644–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Hornick JL, Dal Cin P, Fletcher CD. Loss of INI1 expression is characteristic of both conventional and proximal-type epithelioid sarcoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(4):542–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Hollmann TJ, Hornick JL. INI1-deficient tumors: diagnostic features and molecular genetics. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(10):e47–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  181. Kohashi K, Oda Y, Yamamoto H, et al. SMARCB1/INI1 protein expression in round cell soft tissue sarcomas associated with chromosomal translocations involving EWS: a special reference to SMARCB1/INI1 negative variant extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(8):1168–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. Cheng JX, Tretiakova M, Gong C, Mandal S, Krausz T, Taxy JB. Renal medullary carcinoma: rhabdoid features and the absence of INI1 expression as markers of aggressive behavior. Mod Pathol. 2008;21(6):647–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. Biegel JA, Tan L, Zhang F, Wainwright L, Russo P, Rorke LB. Alterations of the hSNF5/INI1 gene in central nervous system atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors and renal and extrarenal rhabdoid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8(11):3461–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  184. Kohashi K, Oda Y. Oncogenic roles of SMARCB1/INI1 and its deficient tumors. Cancer Sci. 2017;108(4):547–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  185. Fuller CE. All things rhabdoid and SMARC: an enigmatic exploration with Dr. Louis P. Dehner. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2016;33(6):427–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. Sturm D, Orr BA, Toprak UH, et al. New brain tumor entities emerge from molecular classification of CNS-PNETs. Cell. 2016;164(5):1060–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  187. Ferris SP, Velazquez Vega J, Aboian M, et al. High-grade neuroepithelial tumor with BCOR exon 15 internal tandem duplication-a comprehensive clinical, radiographic, pathologic, and genomic analysis. Brain Pathol. 2020;30(1):46–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Lehman NL, Usubalieva A, Lin T, et al. Genomic analysis demonstrates that histologically-defined astroblastomas are molecularly heterogeneous and that tumors with MN1 rearrangement exhibit the most favorable prognosis. Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2019;7(1):42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  189. Lehman NL, Hattab EM, Mobley BC, et al. Morphological and molecular features of astroblastoma, including BRAFV600E mutations, suggest an ontological relationship to other cortical-based gliomas of children and young adults. Neuro-Oncology. 2017;19(1):31–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Wood MD, Tihan T, Perry A, et al. Multimodal molecular analysis of astroblastoma enables reclassification of most cases into more specific molecular entities. Brain Pathol. 2017;28:192.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  191. Specht K, Sung YS, Zhang L, Richter GH, Fletcher CD, Antonescu CR. Distinct transcriptional signature and immunoprofile of CIC-DUX4 fusion-positive round cell tumors compared to EWSR1-rearranged Ewing sarcomas: further evidence toward distinct pathologic entities. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2014;53(7):622–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  192. Yoshimoto T, Tanaka M, Homme M, et al. CIC-DUX4 induces small round cell sarcomas distinct from Ewing sarcoma. Cancer Res. 2017;77(11):2927–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  193. Antonescu CR, Owosho AA, Zhang L, et al. Sarcomas with CIC-rearrangements are a distinct pathologic entity with aggressive outcome: a clinicopathologic and molecular study of 115 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41(7):941–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  194. Le Loarer F, Pissaloux D, Watson S, et al. Clinicopathologic features of CIC-NUTM1 sarcomas, a new molecular variant of the family of CIC-fused sarcomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2019;43(2):268–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  195. Yamada S, Muto J, De Leon JCA, et al. Primary spinal intramedullary Ewing-like sarcoma harboring CIC-DUX4 translocation: a similar cytological appearance as its soft tissue counterpart but no lobulation in association with desmoplastic stroma. Brain Tumor Pathol. 2020;37(3):111–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  196. Bielle F, Zanello M, Guillemot D, et al. Unusual primary cerebral localization of a CIC-DUX4 translocation tumor of the Ewing sarcoma family. Acta Neuropathol. 2014;128(2):309–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  197. Holsten T, Lubieniecki F, Spohn M, et al. Detailed clinical and histopathological description of 8 cases of molecularly defined CNS neuroblastomas. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2021;80(1):52–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  198. Korshunov A, Remke M, Gessi M, et al. Focal genomic amplification at 19q13.42 comprises a powerful diagnostic marker for embryonal tumors with ependymoblastic rosettes. Acta Neuropathol. 2010;120(2):253–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  199. Korshunov A, Sturm D, Ryzhova M, et al. Embryonal tumor with abundant neuropil and true rosettes (ETANTR), ependymoblastoma, and medulloepithelioma share molecular similarity and comprise a single clinicopathological entity. Acta Neuropathol. 2014;128(2):279–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. Spence T, Sin-Chan P, Picard D, et al. CNS-PNETs with C19MC amplification and/or LIN28 expression comprise a distinct histogenetic diagnostic and therapeutic entity. Acta Neuropathol. 2014;128(2):291–303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  201. Pfister S, Remke M, Castoldi M, et al. Novel genomic amplification targeting the microRNA cluster at 19q13.42 in a pediatric embryonal tumor with abundant neuropil and true rosettes. Acta Neuropathol. 2009;117(4):457–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  202. Lambo S, von Hoff K, Korshunov A, Pfister SM, Kool M. ETMR: a tumor entity in its infancy. Acta Neuropathol. 2020;140(3):249–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  203. Korshunov A, Ryzhova M, Jones DT, et al. LIN28A immunoreactivity is a potent diagnostic marker of embryonal tumor with multilayered rosettes (ETMR). Acta Neuropathol. 2012;124(6):875–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  204. Lee Y, Liu J, Patel S, et al. Genomic landscape of meningiomas. Brain Pathol. 2010;20(4):751–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  205. Bi WL, Abedalthagafi M, Horowitz P, et al. Genomic landscape of intracranial meningiomas. J Neurosurg. 2016;125(3):525–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  206. Evans DG, Sainio M, Baser ME. Neurofibromatosis type 2. J Med Genet. 2000;37(12):897–904.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  207. Evans DG. Neurofibromatosis 2 [bilateral acoustic neurofibromatosis, central neurofibromatosis, NF2, neurofibromatosis type II]. Genet Med. 2009;11(9):599–610.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  208. Ragel BT, Jensen RL. Molecular genetics of meningiomas. Neurosurg Focus. 2005;19(5):E9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  209. Suppiah S, Nassiri F, Bi WL, et al. Molecular and translational advances in meningiomas. Neuro-Oncology. 2019;21(Suppl 1):i4–i17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  210. Toland A, McNulty SN, Pekmezci M, et al. Pediatric meningioma: a clinicopathologic and molecular study with potential grading implications. Brain Pathol. 2020;30(6):1134–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  211. Schieffer KM, Agarwal V, LaHaye S, et al. YAP1-FAM118B fusion defines a rare subset of childhood and young adulthood Meningiomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020;45:329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  212. Brastianos PK, Horowitz PM, Santagata S, et al. Genomic sequencing of meningiomas identifies oncogenic SMO and AKT1 mutations. Nat Genet. 2013;45(3):285–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  213. Clark VE, Erson-Omay EZ, Serin A, et al. Genomic analysis of non-NF2 meningiomas reveals mutations in TRAF7, KLF4, AKT1, and SMO. Science. 2013;339(6123):1077–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  214. Shankar GM, Abedalthagafi M, Vaubel RA, et al. Germline and somatic BAP1 mutations in high-grade rhabdoid meningiomas. Neuro-Oncology. 2017;19(4):535–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  215. Shankar GM, Santagata S. BAP1 mutations in high-grade meningioma: implications for patient care. Neuro-Oncology. 2017;19(11):1447–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  216. Abedalthagafi MS, Merrill PH, Bi WL, et al. Angiomatous meningiomas have a distinct genetic profile with multiple chromosomal polysomies including polysomy of chromosome 5. Oncotarget. 2014;5(21):10596–606.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  217. Kuroi Y, Akagawa H, Shibuya M, Onda H, Maegawa T, Kasuya H. Identification of shared genomic aberrations between angiomatous and microcystic meningiomas. Neurooncol Adv. 2019;1(1):vdz028.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  218. Reuss DE, Piro RM, Jones DT, et al. Secretory meningiomas are defined by combined KLF4 K409Q and TRAF7 mutations. Acta Neuropathol. 2013;125(3):351–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  219. Smith MJ, O’Sullivan J, Bhaskar SS, et al. Loss-of-function mutations in SMARCE1 cause an inherited disorder of multiple spinal meningiomas. Nat Genet. 2013;45(3):295–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  220. Olar A, Wani KM, Wilson CD, et al. Global epigenetic profiling identifies methylation subgroups associated with recurrence-free survival in meningioma. Acta Neuropathol. 2017;133(3):431–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  221. Sahm F, Schrimpf D, Stichel D, et al. DNA methylation-based classification and grading system for meningioma: a multicentre, retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(5):682–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  222. Nassiri F, Mamatjan Y, Suppiah S, et al. DNA methylation profiling to predict recurrence risk in meningioma: development and validation of a nomogram to optimize clinical management. Neuro-Oncology. 2019;21(7):901–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  223. Chmielecki J, Crago AM, Rosenberg M, et al. Whole-exome sequencing identifies a recurrent NAB2-STAT6 fusion in solitary fibrous tumors. Nat Genet. 2013;45(2):131–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  224. Robinson DR, Wu YM, Kalyana-Sundaram S, et al. Identification of recurrent NAB2-STAT6 gene fusions in solitary fibrous tumor by integrative sequencing. Nat Genet. 2013;45(2):180–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  225. Schweizer L, Koelsche C, Sahm F, et al. Meningeal hemangiopericytoma and solitary fibrous tumors carry the NAB2-STAT6 fusion and can be diagnosed by nuclear expression of STAT6 protein. Acta Neuropathol. 2013;125(5):651–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  226. Demicco EG, Harms PW, Patel RM, et al. Extensive survey of STAT6 expression in a large series of mesenchymal tumors. Am J Clin Pathol. 2015;143(5):672–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  227. Fritchie KJ, Jin L, Rubin BP, et al. NAB2-STAT6 gene fusion in meningeal hemangiopericytoma and solitary fibrous tumor. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2016;75(3):263–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  228. Barthelmess S, Geddert H, Boltze C, et al. Solitary fibrous tumors/hemangiopericytomas with different variants of the NAB2-STAT6 gene fusion are characterized by specific histomorphology and distinct clinicopathological features. Am J Pathol. 2014;184(4):1209–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  229. Tai HC, Chuang IC, Chen TC, et al. NAB2-STAT6 fusion types account for clinicopathological variations in solitary fibrous tumors. Mod Pathol. 2015;28(10):1324–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  230. Fritchie K, Jensch K, Moskalev EA, et al. The impact of histopathology and NAB2-STAT6 fusion subtype in classification and grading of meningeal solitary fibrous tumor/hemangiopericytoma. Acta Neuropathol. 2019;137(2):307–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  231. Kusters-Vandevelde HV, Kusters B, van Engen-van Grunsven AC, Groenen PJ, Wesseling P, Blokx WA. Primary melanocytic tumors of the central nervous system: a review with focus on molecular aspects. Brain Pathol. 2015;25(2):209–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  232. van de Nes J, Gessi M, Sucker A, et al. Targeted next generation sequencing reveals unique mutation profile of primary melanocytic tumors of the central nervous system. J Neuro-Oncol. 2016;127(3):435–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  233. van Engen-van Grunsven AC, Kusters-Vandevelde H, Groenen PJ, Blokx WA. Update on molecular pathology of cutaneous melanocytic lesions: what is new in diagnosis and molecular testing for treatment? Front Med (Lausanne). 2014;1:39.

    Google Scholar 

  234. Sekine S, Shibata T, Kokubu A, et al. Craniopharyngiomas of adamantinomatous type harbor beta-catenin gene mutations. Am J Pathol. 2002;161(6):1997–2001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  235. Brastianos PK, Taylor-Weiner A, Manley PE, et al. Exome sequencing identifies BRAF mutations in papillary craniopharyngiomas. Nat Genet. 2014;46(2):161–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta – Scottish Rite and Egleston Hospitals, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

    José E. Velázquez Vega & Matthew J. Schniederjan

  2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX, USA

    Leomar Y. Ballester

Authors
  1. José E. Velázquez Vega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leomar Y. Ballester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew J. Schniederjan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José E. Velázquez Vega .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Geisinger Health, Danville, PA, USA

    Yi Ding

  2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Linsheng Zhang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Velázquez Vega, J.E., Ballester, L.Y., Schniederjan, M.J. (2021). Tumors of the Central Nervous System. In: Ding, Y., Zhang, L. (eds) Practical Oncologic Molecular Pathology. Practical Anatomic Pathology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73227-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73227-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-73226-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-73227-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation