Clinically distinct subgroups of glioblastoma multiforme studied by comparative genomic hybridization - PubMed
- ️Invalid Date
Affiliations
- PMID: 8569172
Comparative Study
Clinically distinct subgroups of glioblastoma multiforme studied by comparative genomic hybridization
R G Weber et al. Lab Invest. 1996 Jan.
Abstract
Studies investigating genetic alterations potentially constituting prognostic factors in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) have centered mainly around amplification events. Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) is a recent molecular cytogenetic technique that allows the detection of chromosomal imbalances and amplification sites in tumor DNA prepared from fresh or archival material. A group of 94 patients with GBM underwent surgery followed by a standard course of radiotherapy. Neuroradiologic monitoring with gadolinium-enhanced serial magnetic resonance imaging was applied to study the radiologically progression-free interval (RPFI) and tumor regrowth velocity. These parameters provided a clinical estimate of the postoperative tumor regrowth kinetics and yielded two clinically distinct groups. The most pronounced cases were selected from each group, i.e., those with the most favorable and unfavorable prognosis. Two subgroups with a statistically significant difference in RPFI (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test) containing 10 patients each were formed: Subgroup A (slow tumor regrowth kinetics) and subgroup B (fast tumor regrowth kinetics). For a search of chromosomal alterations that might be correlated with tumor regrowth kinetics, we applied CGH to formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue from these 20 patients. Except for autosomes 18 and 21, all chromosomes were involved at least once in copy-number aberrations. Events commonly associated with GBM, i.e., gains of chromosome 7, complete and partial losses of 9p, 10, and 22q, were not distributed differently between the two subgroups. The following differences were noticeable. Gains (including amplifications) of 12q14-q21 and of 19 were observed more often in subgroup A. Losses of 6q16-qter and parts of 13, and gains of 20, were more frequent in subgroup B. RPFI was significantly shorter for patients without amplification sites than for patients with gene amplification. RPFI did not differ significantly between patients with or without 7p12 amplification, where the epidermal growth factor receptor gene is localized. New amplification sites for GEM tumors were revealed at 11q13 and 11q22-q23. Loss of chromosome 10 was restricted to bands 10q25-q26 in one case. Although differences in the copy-number karyotypes of patients with slow and fast postoperative tumor-regrowth kinetics were noted, the present CGH study did not reveal any single alteration useful as a prognostic factor. In particular, these data do not support the assumption that patients suffering from GBM with amplification events would have a poorer prognosis than others.
Similar articles
-
Vranová V, Necesalová E, Kuglík P, Cejpek P, Pesáková M, Budínská E, Relichová J, Veselská R. Vranová V, et al. Oncol Rep. 2007 Feb;17(2):457-64. Oncol Rep. 2007. PMID: 17203188
-
Strohmeyer DM, Berger AP, Moore DH 2nd, Bartsch G, Klocker H, Carroll PR, Loening SA, Jensen RH. Strohmeyer DM, et al. Prostate. 2004 Apr 1;59(1):43-58. doi: 10.1002/pros.20028. Prostate. 2004. PMID: 14991865
-
Comprehensive analysis of genomic alterations in gliosarcoma and its two tissue components.
Actor B, Cobbers JM, Büschges R, Wolter M, Knobbe CB, Lichter P, Reifenberger G, Weber RG. Actor B, et al. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2002 Aug;34(4):416-27. doi: 10.1002/gcc.10087. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2002. PMID: 12112531
-
Comparative genomic hybridization: an overview.
Houldsworth J, Chaganti RS. Houldsworth J, et al. Am J Pathol. 1994 Dec;145(6):1253-60. Am J Pathol. 1994. PMID: 7992829 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Nishizaki T, Ozaki S, Harada K, Ito H, Arai H, Beppu T, Sasaki K. Nishizaki T, et al. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 1998 Apr;21(4):340-6. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1098-2264(199804)21:4<340::aid-gcc8>3.0.co;2-z. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 1998. PMID: 9559346 Review.
Cited by
-
Bernaldo de Quirós S, Merlo A, Secades P, Zambrano I, de Santa María IS, Ugidos N, Jantus-Lewintre E, Sirera R, Suarez C, Chiara MD. Bernaldo de Quirós S, et al. BMC Cancer. 2013 Mar 14;13:116. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-116. BMC Cancer. 2013. PMID: 23497198 Free PMC article.
-
Song EZ, Wang X, Philipson BI, Zhang Q, Thokala R, Zhang L, Assenmacher CA, Binder ZA, Ming GL, O'Rourke DM, Song H, Milone MC. Song EZ, et al. Mol Ther Oncolytics. 2022 Nov 15;27:288-304. doi: 10.1016/j.omto.2022.11.004. eCollection 2022 Dec 15. Mol Ther Oncolytics. 2022. PMID: 36458202 Free PMC article.
-
IAPs: from caspase inhibitors to modulators of NF-kappaB, inflammation and cancer.
Gyrd-Hansen M, Meier P. Gyrd-Hansen M, et al. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010 Aug;10(8):561-74. doi: 10.1038/nrc2889. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010. PMID: 20651737 Review.
-
Hoischen A, Ehrler M, Fassunke J, Simon M, Baudis M, Landwehr C, Radlwimmer B, Lichter P, Schramm J, Becker AJ, Weber RG. Hoischen A, et al. Brain Pathol. 2008 Jul;18(3):326-37. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3639.2008.00122.x. Epub 2008 Mar 26. Brain Pathol. 2008. PMID: 18371186 Free PMC article.
-
Ozaki S, Nishizaki T, Ito H, Sasaki K. Ozaki S, et al. J Neurooncol. 1999 Jan;41(2):167-74. doi: 10.1023/a:1006086723607. J Neurooncol. 1999. PMID: 10222437
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials