Variant allelic frequencies of driver mutations can identify gliomas with potentially false-negative MGMT promoter methylation results.
Glioma
MGMT promoter
Methylation
Temozolomide
Variant allelic frequency
Journal
Acta neuropathologica communications
ISSN: 2051-5960
Titre abrégé: Acta Neuropathol Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101610673
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 11 2023
02 11 2023
Historique:
received:
21
08
2023
accepted:
25
10
2023
medline:
6
11
2023
pubmed:
3
11
2023
entrez:
3
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
MGMT promoter methylation testing is required for prognosis and predicting temozolomide response in gliomas. Accurate results depend on sufficient tumor cellularity, but histologic estimates of cellularity are subjective. We sought to determine whether driver mutation variant allelic frequency (VAF) could serve as a more objective metric for cellularity and identify possible false-negative MGMT samples. Among 691 adult-type diffuse gliomas, MGMT promoter methylation was assessed by pyrosequencing (N = 445) or DNA methylation array (N = 246); VAFs of TERT and IDH driver mutations were assessed by next generation sequencing. MGMT results were analyzed in relation to VAF. By pyrosequencing, 56% of all gliomas with driver mutation VAF ≥ 0.325 had MGMT promoter methylation, versus only 37% with VAF < 0.325 (p < 0.0001). The mean MGMT promoter pyrosequencing score was 19.3% for samples with VAF VAF ≥ 0.325, versus 12.7% for samples with VAF < 0.325 (p < 0.0001). Optimal VAF cutoffs differed among glioma subtypes (IDH wildtype glioblastoma: 0.12-0.18, IDH mutant astrocytoma: ~0.33, IDH mutant and 1p/19q co-deleted oligodendroglioma: 0.3-0.4). Methylation array was more sensitive for MGMT promoter methylation at lower VAFs than pyrosequencing. Microscopic examination tended to overestimate tumor cellularity when VAF was low. Re-testing low-VAF cases with methylation array and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) confirmed that a subset of them had originally been false-negative. We conclude that driver mutation VAF is a useful quality assurance metric when evaluating MGMT promoter methylation tests, as it can help identify possible false-negative cases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37919784
doi: 10.1186/s40478-023-01680-0
pii: 10.1186/s40478-023-01680-0
pmc: PMC10623846
doi:
Substances chimiques
Tumor Suppressor Proteins
0
DNA Modification Methylases
EC 2.1.1.-
DNA Repair Enzymes
EC 6.5.1.-
Isocitrate Dehydrogenase
EC 1.1.1.41
MGMT protein, human
EC 2.1.1.63
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
175Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : F32CA264883
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01NS117104
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P50 CA221747
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS118039
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Cancer Res. 1999 Feb 15;59(4):793-7
pubmed: 10029064
Genomics. 1991 Oct;11(2):475-6
pubmed: 1769664
Nature. 1980 Dec 25;288(5792):724-7
pubmed: 6256643
Acta Neuropathol. 2018 Apr;135(4):601-615
pubmed: 29368212
Clin Epigenetics. 2021 Mar 9;13(1):52
pubmed: 33750464
Nature. 2018 Mar 22;555(7697):469-474
pubmed: 29539639
Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015 Feb 01;8(2):1790-6
pubmed: 25973069
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Oct 1;4(10):1405-1409
pubmed: 29955793
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Nov 10;31(32):4085-91
pubmed: 24101040
Oncotarget. 2016 Sep 20;7(38):61916-61929
pubmed: 27542245
Acta Neuropathol. 2023 Mar;145(3):365-367
pubmed: 36700952
Clin Cancer Res. 2000 Jul;6(7):2585-97
pubmed: 10914698
Acta Neuropathol. 2018 Aug;136(2):181-210
pubmed: 29967940
Bioinformatics. 2014 May 15;30(10):1363-9
pubmed: 24478339
Acta Neuropathol. 2012 Oct;124(4):547-60
pubmed: 22810491
ESMO Open. 2022 Oct;7(5):100566
pubmed: 36055049
Carcinogenesis. 1983;4(2):199-205
pubmed: 6825208
Brain Tumor Pathol. 2021 Jul;38(3):201-209
pubmed: 34128111
J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2021 Mar 22;80(4):354-365
pubmed: 33755138
Lancet. 2017 Oct 7;390(10103):1645-1653
pubmed: 28801186
Neuro Oncol. 2019 May 6;21(5):616-627
pubmed: 30668814
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Sep;13(9):916-26
pubmed: 22877848
N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 10;352(10):997-1003
pubmed: 15758010
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2021 Mar;18(3):170-186
pubmed: 33293629
J Mol Diagn. 2007 Jul;9(3):368-81
pubmed: 17591937
J Neurooncol. 2022 May;157(3):561-571
pubmed: 35397757
Acta Neuropathol. 2018 Nov;136(5):793-803
pubmed: 30187121
Lancet Oncol. 2009 May;10(5):459-66
pubmed: 19269895
PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51862
pubmed: 23251644
Biochemistry. 2011 May 31;50(21):4804-12
pubmed: 21524095
Future Oncol. 2018 Apr;14(8):699-707
pubmed: 29521523
Neuro Oncol. 2022 Apr 1;24(4):571-581
pubmed: 34555175
Sci Rep. 2019 Jul 31;9(1):11125
pubmed: 31366977
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Jul;13(7):707-15
pubmed: 22578793
J Mol Diagn. 2014 Mar;16(2):174-9
pubmed: 24389534
J Mol Diagn. 2016 May;18(3):350-361
pubmed: 26927331
Neuro Oncol. 2009 Jun;11(3):281-91
pubmed: 18952979
N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 20;370(8):699-708
pubmed: 24552317
DNA Repair (Amst). 2007 Aug 1;6(8):1079-99
pubmed: 17485253
Mol Cell Biol. 1997 Sep;17(9):5612-9
pubmed: 9271436
J Mol Diagn. 2022 Aug;24(8):924-934
pubmed: 35605901
Genome Res. 2012 Dec;22(12):2339-55
pubmed: 22899282
Neuro Oncol. 2015 Nov;17(11):1425-7
pubmed: 26374690
Neuro Oncol. 2021 May 5;23(5):858-860
pubmed: 33830235
Genes Dis. 2016 May 11;3(3):198-210
pubmed: 30258889
Cancer Sci. 2012 Feb;103(2):269-73
pubmed: 22034964
Cancer Res. 1997 Sep 1;57(17):3672-7
pubmed: 9288770
Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep;26(9):1994-1999
pubmed: 26113646
N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 16;376(11):1027-1037
pubmed: 28296618
Neuro Oncol. 2021 Aug 2;23(8):1231-1251
pubmed: 34185076
Mol Diagn Ther. 2022 Jan;26(1):61-87
pubmed: 34773243
Oncotarget. 2015 Jun 30;6(18):16663-73
pubmed: 26143636
Cancer. 2012 Sep 1;118(17):4201-11
pubmed: 22294349
N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 10;352(10):987-96
pubmed: 15758009
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Apr 9;110(15):6021-6
pubmed: 23530248
Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2023 Aug 28;11(1):139
pubmed: 37641156
Neuro Oncol. 2010 Feb;12(2):116-21
pubmed: 20150378