Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Molecularly based management of gliomas in clinical practice

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Neurological Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Histological subtyping and grading of malignancy are the cornerstone of the present World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of CNS tumors. However, among diffuse gliomas of the adult, patients with histologically identical tumors may have different outcomes. As the genomic analysis of these tumors has progressed, it has become clear that specific molecular features transcend histologically defined variants, and may become markers of prognostic and/or predictive value. At the present time, the number of molecular biomarkers with confirmed clinical relevance (MGMT promoter methylation, 1p/19q codeletion, IDH1/2 mutations) remains limited, but new technologies will hopefully provide new candidates requiring rigorous validation in well-designed clinical trials.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD et al (2007) The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol 114:97–109

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ et al (2005) Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 352:987–996

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wick W, Weller M, van den Bent M et al (2014) MGMT testing-the challenges for biomarker-based glioma treatment. Nat Rev Neurol 10:372–385

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gilbert MR, Wang M, Aldape KD et al (2013) Dose-dense temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a randomized phase III clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 31:4085–4091

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lechapt-Zalcman E, Levallet G, Dugué AE et al (2012) O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation and low MGMT-encoded protein expression as prognostic markers in glioblastoma patients treated with biodegradable carmustine wafer implants after initial surgery followed by radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide. Cancer 118:4545–4554

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gállego Pérez-Larraya J, Ducray F, Chinot O et al (2011) Temozolomide in elderly patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and poor performance status: an ANOCEF phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 29:3050–3055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Reifenberger G, Hentschel B, Felsberg J et al (2012) Predictive impact of MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma of the elderly. Int J Cancer 131:1342–1350

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wick W, Platten M, Meisner C, for the NOA-08 Study Group of the Neuro-oncology Working Group (NOA) of the German Cancer Society et al (2012) Temozolomide chemotherapy alone versus radiotherapy alone for malignant astrocytoma in the elderly: the NOA-08 randomized, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 13:707–715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Malmström A, Grønberg BH, Marosi C et al (2012) Temozolomide versus standard 6-week radiotherapy versus hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients older than 60 years with glioblastoma: the Nordic randomized, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 13:916–926

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Minniti G, Salvati M, Arcella A et al (2011) Correlation between O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase and survival in elderly patients with glioblastoma treated with radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide. J Neurooncol 102:311–316

  13. Yin AA, Zhang LH, Cheng JX, Dong Y, Liu BL, Han N, Zhang X (2014) The predictive but not prognostic value of MGMT promoter methylation status in elderly glioblastoma patients: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 13(9):e85102 (1–9)

  14. Radbruch A, Fladt J, Kickingereder P et al (2015) Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: clinical relevance despite low incidence. Neuro Oncol 17:151–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brandes AA, Franceschi E, Tosoni A et al (2008) MGMT promoter methylation status can predict the incidence and outcome of pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. J Clin Oncol 26:2192–2197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fiano V, Trevisan M, Trevisan E et al (2014) MGMT promoter methylation in plasma of glioma patients receiving temozolomide. J Neurooncol 117:347–357

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Felsberg J, Thon N, Eigenbrod S et al (2011) Promoter methylation and expression of MGMT and the DNA mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2 in paired primary and recurrent glioblastomas. Int J Cancer 129:659–670

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Weller M, Cloughesy T, Perry JR et al (2013) Standards of care for treatment of recurrent glioblastoma—are we there yet? Neuro Oncol 15:4–27

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Weller M, Tabatabai G, Kästner B et al (2015) MGMT promoter methylation is a strong prognostic biomarker for benefit from dose-intensified temozolomide rechallenge in progressive glioblastoma: The DIRECTOR Trial. Clin Cancer Res 21:2057–2064

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Weller M, Felsberg J, Hartmann C et al (2009) 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 27:5743–5750

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hegi ME, Janzer RC, Lambiv WL et al (2012) Presence of an oligodendroglioma-like component in newly diagnosed glioblastoma identifies a pathogenetically heterogeneous subgroup and lacks prognostic value: central pathology review of the EORTC_26981/NCIC_CE.3 trial. Acta Neuropathol 123:841–852

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yan H, Parsons DW, Jin G et al (2009) IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in gliomas. N Engl J Med 360:765–773

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sanson M, Marie Y, Paris S et al (2009) Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 codon 132 mutation is an important prognostic biomarker in gliomas. J Clin Oncol 27:4150–4154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hartmann C, Hentschel B, Wick W et al (2010) 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 120:707–718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pelloski CE, Ballman KV, Furth AF et al (2007) Epidermal growth factor receptor variant III status defines clinically distinct subtypes of glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol 25:2288–2294

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Verhaak RG, Hoadley KA, Purdom E et al (2010) Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell 17:98–110

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jenkins RB, Blair H, Ballman KV et al (2006) 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 66:9852–9861

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cairncross G, Berkey B, Shaw E et al (2006) Phase III trial of chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone for pure and mixed anaplastic oligodendroglioma: Intergroup Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Trial 9402. J Clin Oncol 24:2707–2714

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. van den Bent MJ, Carpentier AF, Brandes AA et al (2006) Adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine improves progression-free survival but not overall survival in newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendrogliomas and oligoastrocytomas: a randomized European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 24:2715–2722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cairncross G, Wang M, Shaw E et al (2013) Phase III trial of chemoradiotherapy for anaplastic oligodendroglioma: long-term results of RTOG 9402. J Clin Oncol 31:337–343

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. van den Bent MJ, Brandes AA, Taphoorn MJ et al (2013) Adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine chemotherapy in newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendroglioma: long-term follow-up of EORTC brain tumor group study 26951. J Clin Oncol 31:344–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wick W, Hartmann C, Engel C et al (2009) NOA-04 randomized phase III trial of sequential radiochemotherapy of anaplastic glioma with procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine or temozolomide. J Clin Oncol 27:5874–5880

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhao J, Ma W, Zhao H (2014) Loss of heterozygosity 1p/19q and survival in glioma: a meta-analysis. Neuro Oncol. 16:103–112

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cairncross JG, Wang M, Jenkins RB et al (2014) Benefit from procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine in oligodendroglial tumors is associated with mutation of IDH. J Clin Oncol 32:783–790

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wick W, Meisner C, Hentschel B et al (2013) Prognostic or predictive value of MGMT promoter methylation in gliomas depends on IDH1 mutation. Neurology 81:1515–1522

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. van den Bent MJ, Erdem-Eraslan L, Idbaih A et al (2013) MGMT-STP27 methylation status as predictive marker for response to PCV in anaplastic Oligodendrogliomas and Oligoastrocytomas. A report from EORTC study 26951. Clin Cancer Res 19:5513–5522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wiestler B, Capper D, Holland-Letz T et al (2013) ATRX loss refines the classification of anaplastic gliomas and identifies a subgroup of IDH mutant astrocytic tumors with better prognosis. Acta Neuropathol 126:443–451

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Reuss DE, Sahm F, Schrimpf D et al (2015) ATRX and IDH1-R132H immunohistochemistry with subsequent copy number analysis and IDH sequencing as a basis for an “integrated” diagnostic approach for adult astrocytoma, oligodendrogliomas and glioblastoma. Acta Neuropathol 129:133–146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Weiler M, Wick W (2012) Molecular predictors of outcome in low-grade glioma. Curr Opin Neurol 25:767–773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gozé C, Bezzina C, Gozé E et al (2012) 1P19Q loss but not IDH1 mutations influences WHO grade II gliomas spontaneous growth. J Neurooncol 108:69–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kaloshi G, Benouaich-Amiel A, Diakite F et al (2007) Temozolomide for low-grade gliomas: predictive impact of 1p/19q loss on response and outcome. Neurology 68:1831–1836

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ricard D, Kaloshi G, Amiel-Benouaich A et al (2007) Dynamic history of low-grade gliomas before and after temozolomide treatment. Ann Neurol 61:484–490

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Metellus P, Coulibaly B, Colin C et al (2010) Absence of IDH mutation identifies a novel radiologic and molecular subtype of WHO grade II gliomas with dismal prognosis. Acta Neuropathol 120:719–729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Houillier C, Wang X, Kaloshi G et al (2010) IDH1 or IDH2 mutations predict longer survival and response to temozolomide in low-grade gliomas. Neurology 75:1560–1566

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Dubbink HJ, Taal W, van Marion R et al (2009) IDH1 mutations in low-grade astrocytomas predict survival but not response to temozolomide. Neurology 73:1792–1795

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Taal W, Dubbink HJ, Zonnenberg CB et al (2011) First-line temozolomide chemotherapy in progressive low-grade astrocytomas after radiotherapy: molecular characteristics in relation to response. Neuro Oncol 13:235–241

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Komine C, Watanabe T, Katayama Y et al (2003) 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 13:I76–I84

    Google Scholar 

  48. Everhard S, Kaloshi G, Crinière E et al (2006) MGMT methylation: a marker of response to temozolomide in low-grade gliomas. Ann Neurol 60:740–743

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Levin N, Lavon I, Zelikovitsh B et al (2006) Progressive low-grade oligodendrogliomas: response to temozolomide and correlation between genetic profile and O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase protein expression. Cancer 106:1759–1765

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ochsenbein AF, Schubert AD, Vassella E et al (2011) Quantitative analysis of O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation in patients with low-grade gliomas. J Neurooncol 103:343–351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neuro-Oncology, University and City of Health and Science Hospital, Via Cherasco 15, 10126, Turin, Italy

    Roberta Rudà, Alessia Pellerino, Michela Magistrello, Federica Franchino & Riccardo Soffietti

  2. Department of Neurology, University and City of Health and Science Hospital, Via Cherasco 15, 10126, Turin, Italy

    Lorenzo Pinessi

Authors
  1. Roberta Rudà
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessia Pellerino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michela Magistrello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Federica Franchino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lorenzo Pinessi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Riccardo Soffietti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessia Pellerino.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

I declare that I have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rudà, R., Pellerino, A., Magistrello, M. et al. Molecularly based management of gliomas in clinical practice. Neurol Sci 36, 1551–1557 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-015-2332-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-015-2332-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation