Comparative genetic analysis of metachronous anaplastic oligoastrocytomas with extended recurrence-free interval

Diagnostic test accuracy and cost-effectiveness of tests for codeletion of chromosomal arms 1p and 19q in people with glioma

BACKGROUND

Complete deletion of both the short arm of chromosome 1 (1p) and the long arm of chromosome 19 (19q), known as 1p/19q codeletion, is a mutation that can occur in gliomas. It occurs in a type of glioma known as oligodendroglioma and its higher grade counterpart known as anaplastic oligodendroglioma. Detection of 1p/19q codeletion in gliomas is important because, together with another mutation in an enzyme known as isocitrate dehydrogenase, it is needed to make the diagnosis of an oligodendroglioma. Presence of 1p/19q codeletion also informs patient prognosis and prediction of the best drug treatment. The main two tests in use are fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based loss of heterozygosity (LOH) assays (also known as PCR-based short tandem repeat or microsatellite analysis). Many other tests are available. None of the tests is perfect, although PCR-based LOH is expected to have very high sensitivity.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the sensitivity and specificity and cost-effectiveness of different deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)-based techniques for determining 1p/19q codeletion status in glioma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and BIOSIS up to July 2019. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. We sought economic evaluation studies from the results of this search and using the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included cross-sectional studies in adults with glioma or any subtype of glioma, presenting raw data or cross-tabulations of two or more DNA-based tests for 1p/19q codeletion. We also sought economic evaluations of these tests.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed procedures outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews. Two review authors independently screened titles/abstracts/full texts, performed data extraction, and undertook applicability and risk of bias assessments using QUADAS-2. Meta-analyses used the hierarchical summary ROC model to estimate and compare test accuracy. We used FISH and PCR-based LOH as alternate reference standards to examine how tests compared with those in common use, and conducted a latent class analysis comparing FISH and PCR-based LOH. We constructed an economic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 studies examining: PCR-based LOH, FISH, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array, next-generation sequencing (NGS), comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH), array comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH), multiplex-ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), real-time PCR, chromogenic in situ hybridisation (CISH), mass spectrometry (MS), restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis, G-banding, methylation array and NanoString. Risk of bias was low for only one study; most gave us concerns about how patients were selected or about missing data. We had applicability concerns about many of the studies because only patients with specific subtypes of glioma were included. 1520 participants contributed to analyses using FISH as the reference, 1304 participants to analyses involving PCR-based LOH as the reference and 262 participants to analyses of comparisons between methods from studies not including FISH or PCR-based LOH. Most evidence was available for comparison of FISH with PCR-based LOH (15 studies, 915 participants): PCR-based LOH detected 94% of FISH-determined codeletions (95% credible interval (CrI) 83% to 98%) and FISH detected 91% of codeletions determined by PCR-based LOH (CrI 78% to 97%). Of tumours determined not to have a deletion by FISH, 94% (CrI 87% to 98%) had a deletion detected by PCR-based LOH, and of those determined not to have a deletion by PCR-based LOH, 96% (CrI 90% to 99%) had a deletion detected by FISH. The latent class analysis suggested that PCR-based LOH may be slightly more accurate than FISH. Most other techniques appeared to have high sensitivity (i.e. produced few false-negative results) for detection of 1p/19q codeletion when either FISH or PCR-based LOH was considered as the reference standard, although there was limited evidence. There was some indication of differences in specificity (false-positive rate) with some techniques. Both NGS and SNP array had high specificity when considered against FISH as the reference standard (NGS: 6 studies, 243 participants; SNP: 6 studies, 111 participants), although we rated certainty in the evidence as low or very low. NGS and SNP array also had high specificity when PCR-based LOH was considered the reference standard, although with much more uncertainty as these results were based on fewer studies (just one study with 49 participants for NGS and two studies with 33 participants for SNP array). G-banding had low sensitivity and specificity when PCR-based LOH was the reference standard. Although MS had very high sensitivity and specificity when both FISH and PCR-based LOH were considered the reference standard, these results were based on only one study with a small number of participants. Real-time PCR also showed high specificity with FISH as a reference standard, although there were only two studies including 40 participants. We found no relevant economic evaluations. Our economic model using FISH as the reference standard suggested that the resource-optimising test depends on which measure of diagnostic accuracy is most important. With FISH as the reference standard, MLPA is likely to be cost-effective if society was willing to pay GBP 1000 or less for a true positive detected. However, as the value placed on a true positive increased, CISH was most cost-effective. Findings differed when the outcome measure changed to either true negative detected or correct diagnosis. When PCR-based LOH was used as the reference standard, MLPA was likely to be cost-effective for all measures of diagnostic accuracy at lower threshold values for willingness to pay. However, as the threshold values increased, none of the tests were clearly more likely to be considered cost-effective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In our review, most techniques (except G-banding) appeared to have good sensitivity (few false negatives) for detection of 1p/19q codeletions in glioma against both FISH and PCR-based LOH as a reference standard. However, we judged the certainty of the evidence low or very low for all the tests. There are possible differences in specificity, with both NGS and SNP array having high specificity (fewer false positives) for 1p/19q codeletion when considered against FISH as the reference standard. The economic analysis should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of studies.

Chromosomal defects track tumor subpopulations and change in progression in oligodendroglioma

To assess karyotypic changes and tumor subpopulations in progression of oligodendroglioma (ODG) we analyzed histologically diagnosed 1p/19q codeleted cases using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray data. We separated cases according to grade, which was assigned blind to karyotype information beyond 1p/19q status. The 51 WHO grade II (O2) and 18 WHO grade III (O3) specimens showed frequent chromosomal locations and patterns of change including loss of heterozygosity (LOH), often copy-neutral, on 9p and LOH on 4p and 4q together. Analysis of co-occurrence indicated that most defects were independent but also suggested increased likelihood of defects on 11q, 13q, and 14q in the presence of defects on 18, 4, and 9, respectively. We used the relative degree of change in B-allele frequency as an indicator of an abnormality's extent, and we present simulated data to clarify how information on subpopulations was thus inferred. Among 9p defects, 89.3% involved the whole tumor, whereas only 47.6% of 4q defects did so. We modeled extent through the tumor as due to a karyotypic change's likelihood of occurring and the fitness it confers on its subpopulation, and used group data to estimate these values. To assess progression directly, we evaluated specimens from six patients who underwent multiple resections since 1996. Four of these patients had received no chemotherapy or radiation, permitting assessment of the natural history of the tumor karyotype in situ. Defects present throughout a tumor at first resection remained so, whereas among subpopulations, some expanded, some remained constant, and some disappeared. The rate of expansion among subpopulations that did so was not uniform, and estimates of fitness predicted subpopulation composition at recurrence. These results extend prior studies of increased karyotypic abnormality in progression of oligodendroglioma and reveal the complex dynamics of subpopulations in the tumor over time.

Clonal analysis in recurrent astrocytic, oligoastrocytic and oligodendroglial tumors implicates IDH1- mutation as common tumor initiating event

Background

To investigate the dynamics of inter- and intratumoral molecular alterations during tumor progression in recurrent gliomas.

Methodology/Principal Findings

To address intertumoral heterogeneity we investigated non- microdissected tumor tissue of 106 gliomas representing 51 recurrent tumors. To address intratumoral heterogeneity a set of 16 gliomas representing 7 tumor pairs with at least one recurrence, and 4 single mixed gliomas were investigated by microdissection of distinct oligodendroglial and astrocytic tumor components. All tumors and tumor components were analyzed for allelic loss of 1p/19q (LOH 1p/19q), for TP53- mutations and for R132 mutations in the IDH1 gene. The investigation of non- microdissected tumor tissue revealed clonality in 75% (38/51). Aberrant molecular alterations upon recurrence were detected in 25% (13/51). 64% (9/14) of these were novel and associated with tumor progression. Loss of previously detected alterations was observed in 36% (5/14). One tumor pair (1/14; 7%) was significant for both. Intratumoral clonality was detected in 57% (4/7) of the microdissected tumor pairs and in 75% (3/4) of single microdissected tumors. 43% (3/7) of tumor pairs and one single tumor (25%) revealed intratumoral heterogeneity. While intratumoral heterogeneity affected both the TP53- mutational status and the LOH1p/19q status, all tumors with intratumoral heterogeneity shared the R132 IDH1- mutation as a common feature in both their microdissected components.

Conclusions/Significance

The majority of recurrent gliomas are of monoclonal origin. However, the detection of divertive tumor cell clones in morphological distinct tumor components sharing IDH1- mutations as early event may provide insight into the tumorigenesis of true mixed gliomas.

Molecular cytogenetic analysis in the study of brain tumors: findings and applications

Classic cytogenetics has evolved from black and white to technicolor images of chromosomes as a result of advances in fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) techniques, and is now called molecular cytogenetics. Improvements in the quality and diversity of probes suitable for FISH, coupled with advances in computerized image analysis, now permit the genome or tissue of interest to be analyzed in detail on a glass slide. It is evident that the growing list of options for cytogenetic analysis has improved the understanding of chromosomal changes in disease initiation, progression, and response to treatment. The contributions of classic and molecular cytogenetics to the study of brain tumors have provided scientists and clinicians alike with new avenues for investigation. In this review the authors summarize the contributions of molecular cytogenetics to the study of brain tumors, encompassing the findings of classic cytogenetics, interphase- and metaphase-based FISH studies, spectral karyotyping, and metaphase- and array-based comparative genomic hybridization. In addition, this review also details the role of molecular cytogenetic techniques in other aspects of understanding the pathogenesis of brain tumors, including xenograft, cancer stem cell, and telomere length studies.