Financially effective test algorithm to identify an aggressive, EGFR-amplified variant of IDH-wildtype, lower-grade diffuse glioma.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Algorithms
Biomarkers, Tumor
/ genetics
Brain Neoplasms
/ economics
Child
Child, Preschool
ErbB Receptors
/ genetics
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Glioma
/ economics
Humans
Isocitrate Dehydrogenase
/ genetics
Male
Middle Aged
Mutation
Neoplasm Grading
Phenotype
Retrospective Studies
Young Adult
VASARI
WHO grade II/III
glioblastoma-like glioma
Journal
Neuro-oncology
ISSN: 1523-5866
Titre abrégé: Neuro Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100887420
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 05 2019
06 05 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
30
11
2018
medline:
20
8
2020
entrez:
30
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Update 3 of the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy (cIMPACT-NOW) recognizes amplification of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) as one important aberration in diffuse gliomas (World Health Organization [WHO] grade II/III). While these recommendations endorse testing, a cost-effective, clinically relevant testing paradigm is currently lacking. Here, we use real-world clinical data to propose a financially effective diagnostic test algorithm in the context of new guidelines. To determine the prevalence, distribution, neuroradiographic features (Visually Accessible REMBRANDT Images [VASARI]), and prognostic relevance of EGFR amplification in lower-grade gliomas, we assembled a consecutive series of diffuse gliomas. For validation we included publicly available data from The Cancer Genome Atlas. For a cost-utility analysis we compared combined EGFR and isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) testing, EGFR testing based on IDH results, and no EGFR testing. In n = 71 WHO grade II/III gliomas, we identified EGFR amplification in 28.2%. With one exception, all EGFR amplifications occurred in IDH-wildtype gliomas. Comparison of overall survival showed that EGFR amplification denotes a significantly more aggressive subset of tumors (P < 0.0001, log-rank). The radiologic phenotype in the EGFR-amplified tumors includes diffusion restriction (15%, P = 0.02), >5% tumor contrast enhancement (75%, P = 0.016), and mild (not avid) enhancement (P = 0.016). The proposed testing algorithm reserves EGFR fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing for IDH-wildtype cases. Implementation would result in ~37.9% cost reduction at our institution, or about $1.3-4 million nationally. EGFR-amplified diffuse gliomas are "glioblastoma-like" in their behavior and may represent undersampled glioblastomas, or subsets of IDH-wildtype diffuse gliomas with inherently aggressive biology. EGFR FISH after IDH testing is a financially effective and clinically relevant test algorithm for routine clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Update 3 of the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy (cIMPACT-NOW) recognizes amplification of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) as one important aberration in diffuse gliomas (World Health Organization [WHO] grade II/III). While these recommendations endorse testing, a cost-effective, clinically relevant testing paradigm is currently lacking. Here, we use real-world clinical data to propose a financially effective diagnostic test algorithm in the context of new guidelines.
METHODS
To determine the prevalence, distribution, neuroradiographic features (Visually Accessible REMBRANDT Images [VASARI]), and prognostic relevance of EGFR amplification in lower-grade gliomas, we assembled a consecutive series of diffuse gliomas. For validation we included publicly available data from The Cancer Genome Atlas. For a cost-utility analysis we compared combined EGFR and isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) testing, EGFR testing based on IDH results, and no EGFR testing.
RESULTS
In n = 71 WHO grade II/III gliomas, we identified EGFR amplification in 28.2%. With one exception, all EGFR amplifications occurred in IDH-wildtype gliomas. Comparison of overall survival showed that EGFR amplification denotes a significantly more aggressive subset of tumors (P < 0.0001, log-rank). The radiologic phenotype in the EGFR-amplified tumors includes diffusion restriction (15%, P = 0.02), >5% tumor contrast enhancement (75%, P = 0.016), and mild (not avid) enhancement (P = 0.016). The proposed testing algorithm reserves EGFR fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing for IDH-wildtype cases. Implementation would result in ~37.9% cost reduction at our institution, or about $1.3-4 million nationally.
CONCLUSION
EGFR-amplified diffuse gliomas are "glioblastoma-like" in their behavior and may represent undersampled glioblastomas, or subsets of IDH-wildtype diffuse gliomas with inherently aggressive biology. EGFR FISH after IDH testing is a financially effective and clinically relevant test algorithm for routine clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30496526
pii: 5212363
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noy201
pmc: PMC6502496
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Isocitrate Dehydrogenase
EC 1.1.1.41
EGFR protein, human
EC 2.7.10.1
ErbB Receptors
EC 2.7.10.1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
596-605Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA225585
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Curr Pharm Des. 2012;18(19):2672-9
pubmed: 22390755
Cancer Res. 2004 Oct 1;64(19):6892-9
pubmed: 15466178
J Neurooncol. 2012 Oct;110(1):89-98
pubmed: 22821383
Science. 2008 Sep 26;321(5897):1807-12
pubmed: 18772396
Radiology. 2013 May;267(2):560-9
pubmed: 23392431
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Jun 1;19(6):862-870
pubmed: 28339588
Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Oct 15;15(20):6430-7
pubmed: 19808867
Am J Pathol. 1996 Apr;148(4):1047-53
pubmed: 8644846
Oncotarget. 2014 Sep 30;5(18):8083-92
pubmed: 25257301
J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2018 Jun 1;77(6):437-442
pubmed: 29718398
Sci Signal. 2013 Apr 02;6(269):pl1
pubmed: 23550210
J Clin Neurosci. 2009 Jun;16(6):748-54
pubmed: 19324552
J Neurooncol. 2017 Dec;135(3):465-472
pubmed: 28856550
N Engl J Med. 2004 Sep 16;351(12):1260-1; author reply 1260-1
pubmed: 15376352
J Neurooncol. 2018 Sep;139(2):349-357
pubmed: 29663171
J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2017 Feb 1;76(2):151-154
pubmed: 28110298
Acta Neurol Scand. 2015 Nov;132(5):310-22
pubmed: 25846813
Eur Radiol. 2018 Jan;28(1):356-362
pubmed: 28755054
Radiology. 2014 Oct;273(1):168-74
pubmed: 24827998
Acta Neuropathol. 2015 Jun;129(6):829-48
pubmed: 25943888
J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2018 Jun 1;77(6):422-425
pubmed: 29444314
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Jun 1;19(6):786-795
pubmed: 28340142
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Dec 20;29(36):4803-10
pubmed: 22042947
Mutat Res. 1992 May;276(3):299-306
pubmed: 1374522
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Oct 1;19(10):1327-1337
pubmed: 28575485
Ann Oncol. 2009 Sep;20(9):1596-603
pubmed: 19491283
Acta Neuropathol. 2018 Nov;136(5):793-803
pubmed: 30187121
Am J Pathol. 2015 Jul;185(7):1820-33
pubmed: 25976245
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 25;372(26):2499-508
pubmed: 26061753
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Nov 29;19(12):1640-1650
pubmed: 29016871
Acta Neuropathol. 2015 Jun;129(6):867-73
pubmed: 25962792
PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25451
pubmed: 21998659
Cancer Discov. 2012 May;2(5):401-4
pubmed: 22588877
Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2013 May;13(5):345
pubmed: 23532369
Acta Neuropathol. 2018 Nov;136(5):805-810
pubmed: 30259105
Acta Neuropathol. 2015 Sep;130(3):407-17
pubmed: 26087904
Invest Radiol. 1999 Jun;34(6):427-34
pubmed: 10353036
Nat Med. 2014 Dec;20(12):1479-84
pubmed: 25384085
Clin Neuropathol. 2005 Sep-Oct;24(5):209-18
pubmed: 16167544
Cancer Res. 2003 Oct 15;63(20):6962-70
pubmed: 14583498
J Clin Oncol. 2004 May 15;22(10):1926-33
pubmed: 15143086
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Oct;18(10):1373-1385
pubmed: 28844499
N Engl J Med. 2009 Feb 19;360(8):765-73
pubmed: 19228619
N Engl J Med. 2005 Nov 10;353(19):2012-24
pubmed: 16282176
Neuro Oncol. 2015 Oct;17 Suppl 4:iv1-iv62
pubmed: 26511214
Radiology. 2014 Aug;272(2):484-93
pubmed: 24646147
Oncotarget. 2014 Mar 30;5(6):1452-7
pubmed: 24140581
Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2012 Dec;12(12):1649-59
pubmed: 23043252
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 25;372(26):2481-98
pubmed: 26061751
Mod Pathol. 2005 Sep;18(9):1258-63
pubmed: 15832192
Neuro Oncol. 2014 Apr;16(4):567-78
pubmed: 24470557