Real-Time Methylation-Specific Polymerase Chain Reaction for MGMT Promoter Methylation Clinical Testing in Glioblastoma: An Alternative Detection Method for a Heterogeneous Process

Do we really know who has an MGMT methylated glioma? Results of an international survey regarding use of MGMT analyses for glioma

Background

Glioma O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status informs clinical decision making. Worldwide different methods and cutoff levels are used, which can lead to discordant methylation results.

Methods

We conducted an international survey to clarify which methods are regularly used and why. We also explored opinions regarding international consensus on methods and cutoff.

Results

The survey had 152 respondents from 25 countries. MGMT methylation status is determined for all glioblastomas in 37% of laboratories. The most common methods are methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (msPCR) (37%) and pyrosequencing (34%). A method is selected for simplicity (56%), cost-effectiveness (50%), and reproducibility of results (52%). For sequencing, the number of CpG sites analyzed varies from 1–3 up to more than 16. For 50% of laboratories, the company producing the kit determines which CpG sites are examined, whereas 33% select the sites themselves. Selection of cutoff is equally distributed among a cutoff defined in the literature, by the local laboratory, or by the outside laboratory performing the analysis. This cutoff varies, reported from 1% to 30%, and in 1 laboratory tumor is determined as methylated in case of 1 methylated CpG site of 17 analyzed. Some report tumors as unmethylated or weakly vs highly methylated. An international consensus on MGMT methylation method and cutoff is warranted by 66% and 76% of respondents, respectively. The method preferred would be msPCR (45%) or pyrosequencing (42%), whereas 18% suggest next-generation sequencing.

Conclusion

Although analysis of MGMT methylation status is routine, there is controversy regarding laboratory methods and cutoff level. Most respondents favor development of international consensus guidelines.

MGMT Gene Promoter Methylation Status - Assessment of Two Pyrosequencing Kits and Three Methylation-specific PCR Methods for their Predictive Capacity in Glioblastomas

BACKGROUND

Although methylation of the O⁶-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) gene promoter predicts response to temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma, no consensus exists as to which assay is best for its detection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Methylation of MGMT promoter was examined by methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (MSP), quantitative real-time MSP, methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting analysis, and two commercial pyrosequencing (PSQ) kits. Survival was compared among 48 patients with glioblastoma according to assay results.

RESULTS

Only PSQ and MSP significantly separated patients who benefited from temozolomide, with PSQ being the superior method. For PSQ analysis, the cut-off value that best correlated with prognostic outcome was 7% methylation of MGMT. Median survival in patients with MGMT promoter methylation above this cut-off value was 7.8 months longer compared to those with less than 7% methylation. Two-year overall survival for the two groups was 42% and 7.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

PSQ is the method of choice for MGMT promoter methylation analysis in routine clinical practice.

MGMT Promoter Methylation Cutoff with Safety Margin for Selecting Glioblastoma Patients into Trials Omitting Temozolomide: A Pooled Analysis of Four Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

The methylation status of the O⁶-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) gene promoter is predictive for benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma (GBM). A clinically optimized cutoff was sought allowing patient selection for therapy without temozolomide, while avoiding to withhold it from patients who may potentially benefit.Experimental Design: Quantitative MGMT methylation-specific PCR data were obtained for newly diagnosed patients with GBM screened or treated with standard radiotherapy and temozolomide in four randomized trials. The pooled dataset was randomly split into a training and test dataset. The unsupervised cutoff was obtained at a 50% probability to be (un)methylated. ROC analysis identified an optimal cutoff supervised by overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

For 4,041 patients valid MGMT results were obtained, whereof 1,725 were randomized. The unsupervised cutoff in the training dataset was 1.27 (log₂[1,000 × (MGMT+1)/ACTB]), separating unmethylated and methylated patients. The optimal supervised cutoff for unmethylated patients was -0.28 (AUC = 0.61), classifying "truly unmethylated" (≤-0.28) and "gray zone" patients (>-0.28, ≤1.27), the latter comprising approximately 10% of cases. In contrast, for patients with MGMT methylation (>1.27) more methylation was not related to better outcome. Both methylated and gray zone patients performed significantly better for OS than truly unmethylated patients [HR = 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27-0.45, P < 0.0001; HR = 0.58, 95% CI, 0.43-0.78, P < 0.001], validated in the test dataset. The MGMT assay was highly reproducible upon retesting of 218 paired samples (R ² = 0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Low MGMT methylation (gray zone) may confer some sensitivity to temozolomide treatment, hence the lower safety margin should be considered for selecting patients with unmethylated GBM into trials omitting temozolomide.