Financially effective test algorithm to identify an aggressive, EGFR-amplified variant of IDH-wildtype, lower-grade diffuse 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
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

596-605

Subventions

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

Auteurs

Tejus A Bale (TA)

Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.

Justin T Jordan (JT)

Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Department of Neurology, Boston, Massachusetts.
Division of Hematology/Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts.

Otto Rapalino (O)

Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology, Boston, Massachusetts.

Nisha Ramamurthy (N)

Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Nicholas Jessop (N)

Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

John C DeWitt (JC)

Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Valentina Nardi (V)

Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Maria Martinez-Lage Alvarez (MM)

Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Matthew Frosch (M)

Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Tracy T Batchelor (TT)

Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Department of Neurology, Boston, Massachusetts.
Division of Hematology/Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts.

David N Louis (DN)

Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

A John Iafrate (AJ)

Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Daniel P Cahill (DP)

Department of Neurosurgery, Boston, Massachusetts.
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Jochen K Lennerz (JK)

Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH