- Split View
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Kosuke Aoki, Hideo Nakamura, Hiromichi Suzuki, Keitaro Matsuo, Keisuke Kataoka, Teppei Shimamura, Kazuya Motomura, Fumiharu Ohka, Satoshi Shiina, Takashi Yamamoto, Yasunobu Nagata, Tetsuichi Yoshizato, Masahiro Mizoguchi, Tatsuya Abe, Yasutomo Momii, Yoshihiro Muragaki, Reiko Watanabe, Ichiro Ito, Masashi Sanada, Hironori Yajima, Naoya Morita, Ichiro Takeuchi, Satoru Miyano, Toshihiko Wakabayashi, Seishi Ogawa, Atsushi Natsume, Prognostic relevance of genetic alterations in diffuse lower-grade gliomas, Neuro-Oncology, Volume 20, Issue 1, January 2018, Pages 66–77, https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nox132
- Share Icon Share
Abstract
Diffuse lower-grade gliomas (LGGs) are genetically classified into 3 distinct subtypes based on isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation status and codeletion of chromosome 1p and 19q (1p/19q). However, the subtype-specific effects of additional genetic lesions on survival are largely unknown.
Using Cox proportional hazards regression modeling, we investigated the subtype-specific effects of genetic alterations and clinicopathological factors on survival in each LGG subtype, in a Japanese cohort of LGG cases fully genotyped for driver mutations and copy number variations associated with LGGs (n = 308). The results were validated using a dataset from 414 LGG cases available from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA).
In Oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant and 1p/19q codeleted, NOTCH1 mutations (P = 0.0041) and incomplete resection (P = 0.0019) were significantly associated with shorter survival. In Astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, PIK3R1 mutations (P = 0.0014) and altered retinoblastoma pathway genes (RB1, CDKN2A, and CDK4) (P = 0.013) were independent predictors of poor survival. In IDH-wildtype LGGs, co-occurrence of 7p gain, 10q loss, mutation in the TERT promoter (P = 0.024), and grade III histology (P < 0.0001) independently predicted poor survival. IDH-wildtype LGGs without any of these factors were diagnosed at a younger age (P = 0.042), and were less likely to have genetic lesions characteristic of glioblastoma, in comparison with other IDH-wildtype LGGs, suggesting that they likely represented biologically different subtypes. These results were largely confirmed in the cohort of TCGA.
Subtype-specific genetic lesions can be used to stratify patients within each LGG subtype. enabling better prognostication and management.
Diffuse gliomas, the most prevalent primary malignant brain tumors, have been classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) into grades II–IV gliomas.1 Diffuse grade IV glioma, or glioblastoma (GBM), represents the most aggressive subtype, with a uniformly dismal prognosis: The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate is less than 5%.2 By contrast, diffuse grade II and III gliomas are generally less aggressive tumors with a median survival of more than 7 years.3 Although grades II and III are often collectively termed diffuse lower-grade gliomas (LGGs), there is substantial heterogeneity among these tumors in terms of pathological features and clinical outcome.1
In this regard, a significant advance in recent years has been the identification of a set of genetic lesions that are characteristic of LGGs and correlate well with histology and clinical outcome. These include highly recurrent mutations in the genes encoding isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1 and 2 and codeletion of 1p and 19q (1p/19q).4–8 In fact, LGGs can be more effectively classified into discrete subsets with unique profiles of histology and survival on the basis of these genetic lesions than based on histopathology alone. IDH-mutant LGGs are associated with a longer OS than IDH-wildtype LGGs.9,10 Among IDH-mutant LGGs, those with 1p/19q codeletion are predominantly oligodendroglial tumors (“Oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant and 1p/19q codeleted,” hereafter called Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel) and are associated with significantly better survival than those without 1p/19q codeletion, which typically exhibit astrocytic histology (“Astrocytoma, IDH-mutant,” hereafter called Astrocytoma IDH-mut).11,12 Recently, 2 comprehensive molecular studies reported the landscape of genetic alterations in large cohorts of LGG patients.3,13 Both studies not only confirmed the aforementioned genetic subtypes and their impact on survival, but also demonstrated that each WHO subtype has a characteristic set of features, including additional genetic alterations, mean age, and DNA methylation and gene expression profiles. Thus, each subtype is considered to represent a discrete clinicopathological entity.
Given the high level of intertumor heterogeneity inferred from the presence of additional genetic lesions in each genetic subtype, it is possible that within each WHO subtype, we could find one or more subgroups that exhibit distinct biological behaviors and prognosis. In this regard, recent studies reported a number of genetic alterations that were implicated in poor clinical outcomes in particular subtypes, including CIC mutation in Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel14; loss of chromosome 9p, mutation of PIK3CA and PIK3R1, and deletion of CDKN2A in Astrocytoma IDH-mut15–17; and mutation of the TERT promoter in IDH-wildtype LGGs.18 However, the effects of these alterations on OS have not been systemically confirmed in a large cohort of patients who were fully genotyped for genetic alterations that are frequently found in LGGs and for whom long-term follow-up data were available; the latter point is essential for accurate evaluation of OS of a disease that frequently exhibits an indolent clinical history.
In this study, we investigated the effects of subtype-specific genetic alterations on OS, using datasets from 2 independent cohorts of LGG patients: one from Japan (JPN) for discovery, and one from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) for validation. All of the subjects had been fully genotyped for known or putative driver mutations and copy number variations (CNVs) associated with LGGs and annotated for relevant clinical characteristics and long-term survival. In the light of recent advances in our molecular understanding of diffuse gliomas, it remains to be determined how GBM and LGGs, especially anaplastic astrocytoma, differ from each other. In fact, Astrocytoma IDH-mut and IDH-wildtype LGGs share molecular and clinical features with GBM, IDH-mutant and GBM, IDH-wildtype, respectively.13,19 In this study, we used TCGA GBM data to compare the clinical, genetic, and epigenetic features of LGG subtypes with unfavorable prognostic factors with those of GBM.
Materials and Methods
Patients and Dataset
In total, 308 (JPN) and 414 (TCGA) patients aged ≥18 years with previously untreated supratentorial diffuse grade II and III gliomas were analyzed, along with 471 GBM patients from TCGA.20,21 Clinical and pathological characteristics of patients are summarized in Table 1 (also see Supplementary Table S1). Tumors were classified into 3 major subtypes according to the WHO classification, revised in 2016 (Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel, Astrocytoma IDH-mut, and IDH-wildtype LGGs),1 although for IDH-wildtype LGGs we did not distinguish between astrocytoma and oligodendroglioma. In the JPN cohort, the diagnosis of LGG was made by local pathologists in the participating centers. For 288 (93.5%) of the 308 JPN samples, histological specimens were centrally reviewed by 2 independent board-certified pathologists, as previously described.3 Data of preoperative MRI of Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel with contrast enhancement was available in 132 (93.6%) of JPN and 49 (35.2%) of TCGA patients (http://public.cancerimagingarchive.net/, accessed August 22, 2017). For the cohort from TCGA, we used DNA methylation-based subgroups data from Ceccarelli et al, who divided gliomas into 6 subgroups.20 The extent of tumor resection was unknown in 3 JPN and 10 TCGA cases. Informed consent was obtained from all JPN patients before tumor sampling by surgery, which was performed between 1990 and 2013. This study was approved by the ethics committees or institutional review boards of all participating institutes.
. | Lower-Grade Gliomas . | Glioblastoma . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cohort . | JPN (n = 308) . | TCGA (n = 414) . | TCGA (n = 471) . | |||||
Subtype | Oligo, IDH-mut/ 1p19q-codel | Astro, IDH-mut | IDH-WT LGGs | Oligo, IDH-mut/ 1p19q-codel | Astro, IDH-mut | IDH-WT LGGs | GBM, IDH-mut | GBM, IDH-WT |
Case, n (%) | 141 (46) | 109 (35) | 58 (19) | 139 (34) | 196 (47) | 79 (19) | 37 (8) | 434 (92) |
Follow-up years—median (25th and 75th percentiles) | ||||||||
7.17 (3.56–10.75) | 5.03 (3.01–9.14) | 5.05 (3.24–8.85) | 1.71 (1.03–3.22) | 1.67 (1.10–3.33) | 1.35 (0.66–1.92) | 0.87 (0.48–1.78) | 0.70 (0.45–1.00) | |
No. of event | 32 | 43 | 40 | 21 | 43 | 43 | 22 | 318 |
OS (year)—median (95% CI) | ||||||||
20.45 (16.4-NR) | 8.41 (7.10-NR) | 2.45 (2.10–4.11) | 11.19 (6.52-NR) | 7.29 (5.62–10.9) | 1.78 (1.54–2.23) | 3.23 (2.02–7.54) | 1.11 (1.02–1.24) | |
Age at diagnosis—median (25th and 75th percentile) | ||||||||
45 (36–54) | 37 (30–46) | 50 (41–65) | 45 (37–55) | 36 (30–43) | 55 (45–62) | 38 (28–45) | 60 (52–69) | |
WHO grade, n (%) | ||||||||
Grade II | 81 (57) | 77 (71) | 20 (34) | 77 (55) | 100 (56) | 16 (20) | ||
Grade III | 60 (43) | 32 (29) | 38 (66) | 62 (45) | 96 (49) | 63 (80) | ||
Grade IV | 37 (100) | 434 (100) | ||||||
Tumor location (supratentorial), n (%) | ||||||||
Frontal lobe | 113 (80) | 80 (73) | 34 (59) | 102 (73) | 117 (60) | 29 (37) | ||
Occipital lobe | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 3 (5) | 3 (2) | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | ||
Parietal lobe | 13 (9) | 10 (9) | 3 (5) | 11 (8) | 20 (10) | 7 (9) | ||
Temporal lobe | 12 (9) | 18 (17) | 17 (29) | 21 (15) | 57 (29) | 41 (52) | ||
Unknown | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 1 (2) | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 2 (3) | 37 (100) | 434 (100) |
Surgery, n (%) | ||||||||
GTR | 99 (70) | 66 (61) | 27 (47) | 88 (63) | 115 (59) | 44 (56) | ||
PR | 40 (28) | 42 (39) | 31 (53) | 49 (35) | 73 (37) | 35 (44) | ||
Unknown | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 2 (1) | 8 (4) | 0 (0) | 37 (100) | 434 (100) |
. | Lower-Grade Gliomas . | Glioblastoma . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cohort . | JPN (n = 308) . | TCGA (n = 414) . | TCGA (n = 471) . | |||||
Subtype | Oligo, IDH-mut/ 1p19q-codel | Astro, IDH-mut | IDH-WT LGGs | Oligo, IDH-mut/ 1p19q-codel | Astro, IDH-mut | IDH-WT LGGs | GBM, IDH-mut | GBM, IDH-WT |
Case, n (%) | 141 (46) | 109 (35) | 58 (19) | 139 (34) | 196 (47) | 79 (19) | 37 (8) | 434 (92) |
Follow-up years—median (25th and 75th percentiles) | ||||||||
7.17 (3.56–10.75) | 5.03 (3.01–9.14) | 5.05 (3.24–8.85) | 1.71 (1.03–3.22) | 1.67 (1.10–3.33) | 1.35 (0.66–1.92) | 0.87 (0.48–1.78) | 0.70 (0.45–1.00) | |
No. of event | 32 | 43 | 40 | 21 | 43 | 43 | 22 | 318 |
OS (year)—median (95% CI) | ||||||||
20.45 (16.4-NR) | 8.41 (7.10-NR) | 2.45 (2.10–4.11) | 11.19 (6.52-NR) | 7.29 (5.62–10.9) | 1.78 (1.54–2.23) | 3.23 (2.02–7.54) | 1.11 (1.02–1.24) | |
Age at diagnosis—median (25th and 75th percentile) | ||||||||
45 (36–54) | 37 (30–46) | 50 (41–65) | 45 (37–55) | 36 (30–43) | 55 (45–62) | 38 (28–45) | 60 (52–69) | |
WHO grade, n (%) | ||||||||
Grade II | 81 (57) | 77 (71) | 20 (34) | 77 (55) | 100 (56) | 16 (20) | ||
Grade III | 60 (43) | 32 (29) | 38 (66) | 62 (45) | 96 (49) | 63 (80) | ||
Grade IV | 37 (100) | 434 (100) | ||||||
Tumor location (supratentorial), n (%) | ||||||||
Frontal lobe | 113 (80) | 80 (73) | 34 (59) | 102 (73) | 117 (60) | 29 (37) | ||
Occipital lobe | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 3 (5) | 3 (2) | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | ||
Parietal lobe | 13 (9) | 10 (9) | 3 (5) | 11 (8) | 20 (10) | 7 (9) | ||
Temporal lobe | 12 (9) | 18 (17) | 17 (29) | 21 (15) | 57 (29) | 41 (52) | ||
Unknown | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 1 (2) | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 2 (3) | 37 (100) | 434 (100) |
Surgery, n (%) | ||||||||
GTR | 99 (70) | 66 (61) | 27 (47) | 88 (63) | 115 (59) | 44 (56) | ||
PR | 40 (28) | 42 (39) | 31 (53) | 49 (35) | 73 (37) | 35 (44) | ||
Unknown | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 2 (1) | 8 (4) | 0 (0) | 37 (100) | 434 (100) |
Abbreviations: Oligo = oligodendroglioma; Astro = astrocytoma, WT = wildtype; NR = nor reached; GTR = gross total resection; PR = partial resection.
. | Lower-Grade Gliomas . | Glioblastoma . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cohort . | JPN (n = 308) . | TCGA (n = 414) . | TCGA (n = 471) . | |||||
Subtype | Oligo, IDH-mut/ 1p19q-codel | Astro, IDH-mut | IDH-WT LGGs | Oligo, IDH-mut/ 1p19q-codel | Astro, IDH-mut | IDH-WT LGGs | GBM, IDH-mut | GBM, IDH-WT |
Case, n (%) | 141 (46) | 109 (35) | 58 (19) | 139 (34) | 196 (47) | 79 (19) | 37 (8) | 434 (92) |
Follow-up years—median (25th and 75th percentiles) | ||||||||
7.17 (3.56–10.75) | 5.03 (3.01–9.14) | 5.05 (3.24–8.85) | 1.71 (1.03–3.22) | 1.67 (1.10–3.33) | 1.35 (0.66–1.92) | 0.87 (0.48–1.78) | 0.70 (0.45–1.00) | |
No. of event | 32 | 43 | 40 | 21 | 43 | 43 | 22 | 318 |
OS (year)—median (95% CI) | ||||||||
20.45 (16.4-NR) | 8.41 (7.10-NR) | 2.45 (2.10–4.11) | 11.19 (6.52-NR) | 7.29 (5.62–10.9) | 1.78 (1.54–2.23) | 3.23 (2.02–7.54) | 1.11 (1.02–1.24) | |
Age at diagnosis—median (25th and 75th percentile) | ||||||||
45 (36–54) | 37 (30–46) | 50 (41–65) | 45 (37–55) | 36 (30–43) | 55 (45–62) | 38 (28–45) | 60 (52–69) | |
WHO grade, n (%) | ||||||||
Grade II | 81 (57) | 77 (71) | 20 (34) | 77 (55) | 100 (56) | 16 (20) | ||
Grade III | 60 (43) | 32 (29) | 38 (66) | 62 (45) | 96 (49) | 63 (80) | ||
Grade IV | 37 (100) | 434 (100) | ||||||
Tumor location (supratentorial), n (%) | ||||||||
Frontal lobe | 113 (80) | 80 (73) | 34 (59) | 102 (73) | 117 (60) | 29 (37) | ||
Occipital lobe | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 3 (5) | 3 (2) | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | ||
Parietal lobe | 13 (9) | 10 (9) | 3 (5) | 11 (8) | 20 (10) | 7 (9) | ||
Temporal lobe | 12 (9) | 18 (17) | 17 (29) | 21 (15) | 57 (29) | 41 (52) | ||
Unknown | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 1 (2) | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 2 (3) | 37 (100) | 434 (100) |
Surgery, n (%) | ||||||||
GTR | 99 (70) | 66 (61) | 27 (47) | 88 (63) | 115 (59) | 44 (56) | ||
PR | 40 (28) | 42 (39) | 31 (53) | 49 (35) | 73 (37) | 35 (44) | ||
Unknown | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 2 (1) | 8 (4) | 0 (0) | 37 (100) | 434 (100) |
. | Lower-Grade Gliomas . | Glioblastoma . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cohort . | JPN (n = 308) . | TCGA (n = 414) . | TCGA (n = 471) . | |||||
Subtype | Oligo, IDH-mut/ 1p19q-codel | Astro, IDH-mut | IDH-WT LGGs | Oligo, IDH-mut/ 1p19q-codel | Astro, IDH-mut | IDH-WT LGGs | GBM, IDH-mut | GBM, IDH-WT |
Case, n (%) | 141 (46) | 109 (35) | 58 (19) | 139 (34) | 196 (47) | 79 (19) | 37 (8) | 434 (92) |
Follow-up years—median (25th and 75th percentiles) | ||||||||
7.17 (3.56–10.75) | 5.03 (3.01–9.14) | 5.05 (3.24–8.85) | 1.71 (1.03–3.22) | 1.67 (1.10–3.33) | 1.35 (0.66–1.92) | 0.87 (0.48–1.78) | 0.70 (0.45–1.00) | |
No. of event | 32 | 43 | 40 | 21 | 43 | 43 | 22 | 318 |
OS (year)—median (95% CI) | ||||||||
20.45 (16.4-NR) | 8.41 (7.10-NR) | 2.45 (2.10–4.11) | 11.19 (6.52-NR) | 7.29 (5.62–10.9) | 1.78 (1.54–2.23) | 3.23 (2.02–7.54) | 1.11 (1.02–1.24) | |
Age at diagnosis—median (25th and 75th percentile) | ||||||||
45 (36–54) | 37 (30–46) | 50 (41–65) | 45 (37–55) | 36 (30–43) | 55 (45–62) | 38 (28–45) | 60 (52–69) | |
WHO grade, n (%) | ||||||||
Grade II | 81 (57) | 77 (71) | 20 (34) | 77 (55) | 100 (56) | 16 (20) | ||
Grade III | 60 (43) | 32 (29) | 38 (66) | 62 (45) | 96 (49) | 63 (80) | ||
Grade IV | 37 (100) | 434 (100) | ||||||
Tumor location (supratentorial), n (%) | ||||||||
Frontal lobe | 113 (80) | 80 (73) | 34 (59) | 102 (73) | 117 (60) | 29 (37) | ||
Occipital lobe | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 3 (5) | 3 (2) | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | ||
Parietal lobe | 13 (9) | 10 (9) | 3 (5) | 11 (8) | 20 (10) | 7 (9) | ||
Temporal lobe | 12 (9) | 18 (17) | 17 (29) | 21 (15) | 57 (29) | 41 (52) | ||
Unknown | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 1 (2) | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 2 (3) | 37 (100) | 434 (100) |
Surgery, n (%) | ||||||||
GTR | 99 (70) | 66 (61) | 27 (47) | 88 (63) | 115 (59) | 44 (56) | ||
PR | 40 (28) | 42 (39) | 31 (53) | 49 (35) | 73 (37) | 35 (44) | ||
Unknown | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 2 (1) | 8 (4) | 0 (0) | 37 (100) | 434 (100) |
Abbreviations: Oligo = oligodendroglioma; Astro = astrocytoma, WT = wildtype; NR = nor reached; GTR = gross total resection; PR = partial resection.
Mutations and Copy Number Variations
Detection of gene mutations and CNVs in JPN patients was performed as previously described.3 In brief, whole-exome sequencing (WES) and targeted sequencing data were obtained from 52 and 308 cases, respectively, of the JPN cohort. In targeted sequencing, we selected 185 genes, which included recurrently mutated genes in LGGs and related disorders as previously described.3 Somatic mutation calling was performed using the empirical Bayesian mutation calling method, in which we adopted variants with variant allele frequencies ≥0.05 in tumor samples.22 We analyzed single nucleotide polymorphism–array data to assess broad and focal CNVs based on a hidden Markov model using Copy Number Analyzer for GeneChip, as previously described.3,23 CNVs that involved over 70% of the affected chromosome arms were considered broad CNVs (Supplementary Figures S1 and S2). For the cases from TCGA, high-throughput sequencing/microarray data and follow-up clinical information as of July 15, 2016 were obtained from http://cancergenome.nih.gov/, accessed August 22, 2017.13 No data for CNVs were available for 39 JPN cases and 1 TCGA case. Mutation status of the TERT promoter was unknown for 24 TCGA cases. Used for subsequent analyses were gene mutations and focal or broad CNVs found in ≥10% of each WHO subtype and major signaling pathways (Notch; retinoblastoma [RB]; receptor tyrosine kinase/phosphoinositide 3-kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin; SWItch/sucrose non-fermentable; and histone methyltransferase). We selected the set of genes that constituted each signaling pathway as described in previous studies (Supplementary Table S2).3,24–26 Altered pathways were defined by mutations or focal CNVs of more than one corresponding gene. Other subtype-specific alterations previously implicated in clinical outcomes of patients were also included in the analysis: specifically, homozygous deletion of CDKN2A/B and mutations of PIK3R1 and PIK3CA in Astrocytoma IDH-mut (Supplementary Table S3).21 We excluded gain of chromosome 7q and loss of chromosome 10p in IDH-wildtype LGGs, because gain of chromosome 7p and 7q or loss of chromosome 10p and 10q almost always co-occurred (P = 4.16e-11 and 2.15e-8 in Fisher’s exact test, respectively) (Supplementary Figure S3).
Statistical Analysis
To analyze the association of the numbers of broad CNVs and somatic mutations (6 and 34, respectively), the 75th percentile was chosen as a cutoff value. Older age was defined as ≥60 years, according to the classification and regression tree analysis (Supplementary Figure S4). Overall survival was calculated from the time of diagnosis until death or last follow-up and evaluated using the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling. Stratified log-rank tests were performed by introducing strata variables. The multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed using backward stepwise selection of variables based on the Akaike information criterion; candidate independent variables including clinicopathological factors (age, WHO grade, and extent of resection) and genetic alterations had P < 0.05 in Cox regression analyses adjusted for age and WHO grade. The proportional hazards assumption was checked before conducting multivariate analyses. In multivariate analyses, we performed multiple imputation of missing values using the bootstrap-based expectation-maximization method and created 5 imputed complete datasets in each WHO subtype. We performed separate survival analyses of all 5 datasets and combined the results using Rubin’s rule.27 Modeling was also performed using a Bayesian model averaging for 267 cases without missing data.28,29 Median follow-up time was assessed among individuals with censored data. Comparisons of frequencies were made using Fisher’s exact test. Differences in age and the number of CNVs and somatic mutations were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Fisher’s exact test with Benjamini–Hochberg correlation (Q-value) was used to investigate the co-occurrence among genetic alterations in IDH-wildtype LGGs. We used “survival” for Cox regression analysis and log-rank test, “MASS” for stepwise Cox regression analysis, “Amelia” for multiple imputation, “cat” for combined results from multiple imputation, “BMA” for Bayesian model averaging, and “rpart” and “rpart.plot” for the classification and regression tree analysis, all of which are included in the statistical software R version 3.1.3 (https://www.r-project.org/, accessed August 22, 2017). P-value and Q-value < 0.05 were taken to indicate statistical significance. Detailed statistical methods are provided in the Supplementary material.
Results
Clinical Features of Major LGG Subtypes in the JPN Cohort
In accordance with previous studies,3,13 patients with LGGs exhibited substantially different OS depending on the subtype: Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel had a significantly longer OS (median 20.45 y [95% CI, 16.40, not reached]) than Astrocytoma IDH-mut (8.41 y [7.10, not reached]) (P = 0.0012), which in turn had a significantly better clinical outcome than IDH-wildtype LGGs (2.45 y [2.10–4.11]) (P < 0.0001). In age- and WHO grade–stratified log-rank analysis, the effect of molecular subtype on OS was still significant: P = 0.00029 for Astrocytoma IDH-mut versus Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel and P = 0.00042 for IDH-wildtype LGGs versus Astrocytoma IDH-mut. The predominant tumor location was significantly different depending on WHO subtype (P = 0.0038) (Table 1), but no significant association was observed between predominant tumor location and OS in each subtype.
Association of Genetic Alterations with Clinicopathological Features
In the JPN cohort, a larger number of broad CNVs were significantly associated with poor prognosis in LGGs: 5-year OS of patients with 0–6 and ≥7 CNVs were 79% and 56%, respectively (P = 0.0044) (Fig. 1A). CNV number still had prognostic significance in LGGs, as determined by log-rank test stratified by molecular subtype (P = 0.017). The number of broad CNVs was also associated with histological grade in LGG: grade III tumors had significantly more broad CNVs than grade II tumors in all LGG subtypes (Fig. 1B). In the TCGA cohort, a larger number of broad CNVs was also significantly associated with reduced OS: 5-year OS of patients with 0–6 and ≥7 CNVs were 72% and 29%, respectively (P < 0.0001) (Fig. 1C), even in the analysis stratified by molecular subtype (P = 0.0065). Furthermore, in patients with Astrocytoma IDH-mut and IDH-wildtype LGGs, albeit not those with Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel, grade III tumors were more likely than grade II tumors to have larger numbers of broad CNVs (Fig. 1D). Next, we evaluated the association between the number of somatic mutations and clinicopathological features. For these analyses, we used WES data in the combined JPN and TCGA cohort (n = 459), because the number of JPN patients for whom WES data were available (n = 52) was too small to be assessed separately. A larger number of somatic mutations were significantly associated with clinical outcomes in LGGs: 5-year OS of patients having 0–34 and ≥35 somatic mutations were 74% and 44%, respectively (P < 0.0001) (Fig. 1E), even in the analysis stratified by molecular subtype (P = 0.0047). They were also associated with histological grade in all LGG subtypes (Fig. 1F). These results suggest that larger numbers of broad CNVs and somatic mutations could be associated with more aggressive LGG phenotypes.
Association of Genetic Alterations with Overall Survival
Next, we evaluated the effects of recurrent genetic alterations within each WHO subtype in the JPN cohort. In univariate analysis, NOTCH1 mutations were significantly associated with poor OS in Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel, and PIK3R1 mutations and altered RB pathway genes exhibited a similar pattern in Astrocytoma IDH-mut (Fig. 2A and B). In IDH-wildtype LGGs, 5 lesions, including mutation of the TERT promoter and TP53, gain of chromosome 7p, and loss of chromosome 10q and 14q, were shown to negatively affect OS (Fig. 2C). After adjustment for age and WHO grade, these genetic alterations had subtype-specific significant unfavorable prognostic values, except for TP53 mutation (P = 0.056) and loss of chromosome 14q (P = 0.26) in IDH-wildtype LGGs (Fig. 2A–C and Supplementary Figure S5). Mutations in CIC and FUBP1 and those in ATRX were commonly observed in Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel and Astrocytoma IDH-mut, respectively, but did not significantly affect OS in the JPN cohort.
Multivariate Modeling of Overall Survival in LGG Subtypes
In line with previous reports,30,31 age, WHO grade, and extent of resection also significantly affected OS in patents with LGGs in the JPN cohort (Supplementary Table S4). Thus, to determine the contributions of genetic and clinicopathological factors to OS, we performed Cox proportional hazards regression modeling with backward stepwise selection of variables, incorporating the aforementioned clinicopathological factors, in addition to genetic abnormalities with age- and WHO grade–adjusted P-values < 0.05. In this analysis, we noted that gain of chromosome 7p, loss of chromosome 10q, and TERT promoter mutation were strongly mutually correlated in IDH-wildtype LGGs (Fig. 2D) and frequently co-occurred in GBM, IDH-wildtype.20,32 Hence, instead of using the individual lesions as separate variables, we adopted the co-occurrence of all 3 lesions as a single variable for the analysis of IDH-wildtype LGGs. A number of genetic alterations, together with clinicopathological features, were extracted as independent predictors of survival: NOTCH1 mutations (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.14 [95% CI, 1.44–6.84]; P = 0.0041) and extent of resection (partial resection vs gross total resection) (HR = 3.44 [1.59–7.47], P = 0.0019) in Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel; PIK3R1 mutations (HR = 16.2 [95% CI, 2.94–89.5]; P = 0.0014) and altered RB pathway genes (HR = 7.08 [95% CI, 1.51–33.2]; P = 0.013) in Astrocytoma IDH-mut; co-occurrence of gain of chromosome 7p, loss of chromosome 10q, and TERT promoter mutation in IDH-wildtype LGGs (HR = 2.53 [95% CI, 1.13–5.65], P = 0.024) and WHO grade (grade III vs grade II) (HR = 7.09 [2.94–17.1], P < 0.0001) (Table 2 and Fig. 3A, C, and E). To address the issue of uncertainty regarding the model ultimately selected through stepwise selection, we also performed an analysis based on Bayesian model averaging. For each WHO subtype, all variables significantly selected through the stepwise selection had larger posterior probabilities than the unselected variables in the Bayesian model averaging (Supplementary Figure S6), suggesting that the modeling was robust and not affected by the method of variable selection.
. | . | JPN Cohort . | TCGA Cohort . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subtype . | Variables . | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) . | P-value . | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) . | P-value . |
Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
Extent of resection (PR vs GTR) | 3.44 (1.59–7.47) | 0.0019 | 1.40 (0.50–3.94) | 0.53 | |
Age (≥60 y vs <60 y) | 2.25 (0.89–5.70) | 0.086 | 12.5 (3.84–40.4) | <0.0001 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
NOTCH1 mut | 3.14 (1.44–6.84) | 0.0041 | 1.82(0.69–4.83) | 0.23 | |
Astrocytoma IDH-mut | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
Extent of resection (GTR vs PR) | 1.77 (0.95–3.29) | 0.072 | 1.16 (0.59–2.31) | 0.66 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
PIK3R1 mut | 16.2 (2.94–89.5) | 0.0014 | 8.69 (1.90–39.7) | 0.0053 | |
Altered RB pathway genes | 7.08 (1.51–33.2) | 0.013 | 20.5 (6.71–62.9) | <0.0001 | |
IDH-wildtype LGGs | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
WHO grade (grade III vs grade II) | 7.09 (2.94–17.1) | <0.0001 | 3.57 (1.06–12.0) | 0.040 | |
Age (≥60 y vs <60 y) | 1.71 (0.86–3.38) | 0.12 | 2.18 (1.12–4.22) | 0.022 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
Co-occurrence of 7p gain, 10q loss, and pTERT mut | 2.53 (1.13–5.65) | 0.024 | 2.11 (1.05–4.24) | 0.037 |
. | . | JPN Cohort . | TCGA Cohort . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subtype . | Variables . | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) . | P-value . | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) . | P-value . |
Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
Extent of resection (PR vs GTR) | 3.44 (1.59–7.47) | 0.0019 | 1.40 (0.50–3.94) | 0.53 | |
Age (≥60 y vs <60 y) | 2.25 (0.89–5.70) | 0.086 | 12.5 (3.84–40.4) | <0.0001 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
NOTCH1 mut | 3.14 (1.44–6.84) | 0.0041 | 1.82(0.69–4.83) | 0.23 | |
Astrocytoma IDH-mut | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
Extent of resection (GTR vs PR) | 1.77 (0.95–3.29) | 0.072 | 1.16 (0.59–2.31) | 0.66 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
PIK3R1 mut | 16.2 (2.94–89.5) | 0.0014 | 8.69 (1.90–39.7) | 0.0053 | |
Altered RB pathway genes | 7.08 (1.51–33.2) | 0.013 | 20.5 (6.71–62.9) | <0.0001 | |
IDH-wildtype LGGs | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
WHO grade (grade III vs grade II) | 7.09 (2.94–17.1) | <0.0001 | 3.57 (1.06–12.0) | 0.040 | |
Age (≥60 y vs <60 y) | 1.71 (0.86–3.38) | 0.12 | 2.18 (1.12–4.22) | 0.022 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
Co-occurrence of 7p gain, 10q loss, and pTERT mut | 2.53 (1.13–5.65) | 0.024 | 2.11 (1.05–4.24) | 0.037 |
Abbreviations: mut = mutant; pTERT = TERT promoter; GTR = gross total resection; PR = partial resection.
. | . | JPN Cohort . | TCGA Cohort . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subtype . | Variables . | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) . | P-value . | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) . | P-value . |
Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
Extent of resection (PR vs GTR) | 3.44 (1.59–7.47) | 0.0019 | 1.40 (0.50–3.94) | 0.53 | |
Age (≥60 y vs <60 y) | 2.25 (0.89–5.70) | 0.086 | 12.5 (3.84–40.4) | <0.0001 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
NOTCH1 mut | 3.14 (1.44–6.84) | 0.0041 | 1.82(0.69–4.83) | 0.23 | |
Astrocytoma IDH-mut | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
Extent of resection (GTR vs PR) | 1.77 (0.95–3.29) | 0.072 | 1.16 (0.59–2.31) | 0.66 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
PIK3R1 mut | 16.2 (2.94–89.5) | 0.0014 | 8.69 (1.90–39.7) | 0.0053 | |
Altered RB pathway genes | 7.08 (1.51–33.2) | 0.013 | 20.5 (6.71–62.9) | <0.0001 | |
IDH-wildtype LGGs | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
WHO grade (grade III vs grade II) | 7.09 (2.94–17.1) | <0.0001 | 3.57 (1.06–12.0) | 0.040 | |
Age (≥60 y vs <60 y) | 1.71 (0.86–3.38) | 0.12 | 2.18 (1.12–4.22) | 0.022 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
Co-occurrence of 7p gain, 10q loss, and pTERT mut | 2.53 (1.13–5.65) | 0.024 | 2.11 (1.05–4.24) | 0.037 |
. | . | JPN Cohort . | TCGA Cohort . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subtype . | Variables . | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) . | P-value . | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) . | P-value . |
Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
Extent of resection (PR vs GTR) | 3.44 (1.59–7.47) | 0.0019 | 1.40 (0.50–3.94) | 0.53 | |
Age (≥60 y vs <60 y) | 2.25 (0.89–5.70) | 0.086 | 12.5 (3.84–40.4) | <0.0001 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
NOTCH1 mut | 3.14 (1.44–6.84) | 0.0041 | 1.82(0.69–4.83) | 0.23 | |
Astrocytoma IDH-mut | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
Extent of resection (GTR vs PR) | 1.77 (0.95–3.29) | 0.072 | 1.16 (0.59–2.31) | 0.66 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
PIK3R1 mut | 16.2 (2.94–89.5) | 0.0014 | 8.69 (1.90–39.7) | 0.0053 | |
Altered RB pathway genes | 7.08 (1.51–33.2) | 0.013 | 20.5 (6.71–62.9) | <0.0001 | |
IDH-wildtype LGGs | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
WHO grade (grade III vs grade II) | 7.09 (2.94–17.1) | <0.0001 | 3.57 (1.06–12.0) | 0.040 | |
Age (≥60 y vs <60 y) | 1.71 (0.86–3.38) | 0.12 | 2.18 (1.12–4.22) | 0.022 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
Co-occurrence of 7p gain, 10q loss, and pTERT mut | 2.53 (1.13–5.65) | 0.024 | 2.11 (1.05–4.24) | 0.037 |
Abbreviations: mut = mutant; pTERT = TERT promoter; GTR = gross total resection; PR = partial resection.
The results in the JPN cohort were validated in an independent cohort, using the publicly available dataset from TCGA. The JPN and TCGA cohorts were largely similar with regard to most of the clinically relevant demographic features, except for follow-up time, which was substantially longer in the JPN cohort (median 6.17 y) than in TCGA (median 1.59 y) (P < 0.0001). The subtype-specific effects of these genetic alterations and clinicopathological factors on survival that were identified in the JPN cohort were largely confirmed in the cohort from TCGA on the basis of univariate and multivariate analysis, except for the negative effect of NOTCH1 mutations and extent of resection (partial resection) in Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel, which were not statistically significant in the cohort from TCGA (Tables 2 and 3).
. | . | JPN Cohort . | TCGA Cohort . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subtype . | Variables . | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) . | P-value . | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) . | P-value . |
Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
Extent of resection (PR vs GTR) | 3.05 (1.49–6.26) | 0.0024 | 2.07 (0.77–5.54) | 0.15 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
NOTCH1 mut | 2.64 (1.25–5.59) | 0.011 | 2.16 (0.83–5.64) | 0.11 | |
Astrocytoma IDH-mut | |||||
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
PIK3R1 mut | 12.3 (2.32–64.8) | 0.0032 | 6.08 (1.42–26.1) | 0.015 | |
Altered RB pathway genes | 5.47 (1.25–23.9) | 0.024 | 18.8 (6.24–56.5) | <0.0001 | |
IDH-wildtype LGGs | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
WHO grade (grade III vs grade II) | 7.05 (2.99–16.6) | <0.0001 | 3,83 (1.18–12.5) | 0.026 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
Co-occurrence of 7p gain, 10q loss, and pTERT mut | 2.59 (1.22–5.53) | 0.014 | 2.26 (1.06–4.82) | 0.035 |
. | . | JPN Cohort . | TCGA Cohort . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subtype . | Variables . | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) . | P-value . | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) . | P-value . |
Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
Extent of resection (PR vs GTR) | 3.05 (1.49–6.26) | 0.0024 | 2.07 (0.77–5.54) | 0.15 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
NOTCH1 mut | 2.64 (1.25–5.59) | 0.011 | 2.16 (0.83–5.64) | 0.11 | |
Astrocytoma IDH-mut | |||||
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
PIK3R1 mut | 12.3 (2.32–64.8) | 0.0032 | 6.08 (1.42–26.1) | 0.015 | |
Altered RB pathway genes | 5.47 (1.25–23.9) | 0.024 | 18.8 (6.24–56.5) | <0.0001 | |
IDH-wildtype LGGs | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
WHO grade (grade III vs grade II) | 7.05 (2.99–16.6) | <0.0001 | 3,83 (1.18–12.5) | 0.026 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
Co-occurrence of 7p gain, 10q loss, and pTERT mut | 2.59 (1.22–5.53) | 0.014 | 2.26 (1.06–4.82) | 0.035 |
Abbreviations: GTR = gross total resection; PR = partial resection.
. | . | JPN Cohort . | TCGA Cohort . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subtype . | Variables . | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) . | P-value . | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) . | P-value . |
Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
Extent of resection (PR vs GTR) | 3.05 (1.49–6.26) | 0.0024 | 2.07 (0.77–5.54) | 0.15 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
NOTCH1 mut | 2.64 (1.25–5.59) | 0.011 | 2.16 (0.83–5.64) | 0.11 | |
Astrocytoma IDH-mut | |||||
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
PIK3R1 mut | 12.3 (2.32–64.8) | 0.0032 | 6.08 (1.42–26.1) | 0.015 | |
Altered RB pathway genes | 5.47 (1.25–23.9) | 0.024 | 18.8 (6.24–56.5) | <0.0001 | |
IDH-wildtype LGGs | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
WHO grade (grade III vs grade II) | 7.05 (2.99–16.6) | <0.0001 | 3,83 (1.18–12.5) | 0.026 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
Co-occurrence of 7p gain, 10q loss, and pTERT mut | 2.59 (1.22–5.53) | 0.014 | 2.26 (1.06–4.82) | 0.035 |
. | . | JPN Cohort . | TCGA Cohort . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subtype . | Variables . | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) . | P-value . | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) . | P-value . |
Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
Extent of resection (PR vs GTR) | 3.05 (1.49–6.26) | 0.0024 | 2.07 (0.77–5.54) | 0.15 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
NOTCH1 mut | 2.64 (1.25–5.59) | 0.011 | 2.16 (0.83–5.64) | 0.11 | |
Astrocytoma IDH-mut | |||||
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
PIK3R1 mut | 12.3 (2.32–64.8) | 0.0032 | 6.08 (1.42–26.1) | 0.015 | |
Altered RB pathway genes | 5.47 (1.25–23.9) | 0.024 | 18.8 (6.24–56.5) | <0.0001 | |
IDH-wildtype LGGs | |||||
Clinical factors | |||||
WHO grade (grade III vs grade II) | 7.05 (2.99–16.6) | <0.0001 | 3,83 (1.18–12.5) | 0.026 | |
Genetic factors (present vs absent) | |||||
Co-occurrence of 7p gain, 10q loss, and pTERT mut | 2.59 (1.22–5.53) | 0.014 | 2.26 (1.06–4.82) | 0.035 |
Abbreviations: GTR = gross total resection; PR = partial resection.
Stratification of Patients in LGG Subtypes
Although not statistically significant in the cohort from TCGA, NOTCH1 mutations and the extent of resection (partial resection) were independently associated with poor clinical outcomes in JPN patients with Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel. Survival of patients with either or both of these risk factors was significantly shorter than survival of those with neither of these factors in the JPN cohort (P = 0.00044), which did not differ significantly from the survival of patients with Astrocytoma IDH-mut in both the JPN (P = 0.36) and TCGA cohorts (P = 0.46) (Fig. 3A and B). NOTCH1 mutations were strongly associated with positive gadolinium enhancement in preoperative MRI (P = 0.011) and grade III (vs grade II) histology (P = 0.017) in the combined JPN and TCGA cohort, suggesting that NOTCH1 mutations could be associated with more aggressive phenotypes in Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel. PIK3R1 mutations and altered RB pathway genes were significantly associated with poor prognosis in Astrocytoma IDH-mut in both the JPN and TCGA cohorts (Tables 2 and 3). In the cohort from TCGA, patients with one or more of these genetic alterations had a prognosis similar to that of GBM, IDH-mutant in the cohort from TCGA (P = 0.91) (Fig. 3D). In IDH-wildtype LGGs, not only the co-occurrence of gain of chromosome 7p, loss of chromosome 10q, and TERT promoter mutation (HR = 2.26 [95% CI, 1.06–4.82], P = 0.035) but also histological grade (WHO grade III) (HR = 3.83 [95% CI, 1.18–12.5], P = 0.026) were extracted as significant risk factors predicting poor prognosis in the cohort from TCGA (Table 3). Patients with IDH-wildtype LGGs with grade III histology or co-occurrence of the high-risk genetic lesions (high-risk group) had a poor prognosis: median OS was 1.83 years in the JPN cohort and 1.66 years in the cohort from TCGA, which was only about 6 months longer than that of GBM, IDH-wildtype in the cohort from TCGA (1.11 y) (Fig. 3F). The high-risk tumors frequently had genetic alterations characteristic of glioblastoma and were diagnosed at significantly older age than those with none of these risk factors (low-risk group) (P = 0.042 and 0.0021 in the JPN and TCGA cohorts, respectively) (Supplementary Figure S7A and S7B).1,3,13 By contrast, patients with low-risk tumors exhibited excellent survival, similar to that of IDH-mutant LGGs (Fig. 3E and F). These low-risk patients with IDH-wildtype LGGs might be closely related to an entity described as pilocytic astrocytoma-like, a subtype of IDH-wildtype diffuse gliomas with a unique DNA methylation profile and a favorable outcome.20 Actually, among TCGA patients with IDH-wildtype LGGs, those with a pilocytic astrocytoma-like DNA methylation pattern were significantly enriched in the low-risk patients described above (8/8 vs 9/49; P < 0.0001) (Supplementary Figure S7C).20
Discussion
The major strength of this study is its analysis of a large number of patients who were clinically well annotated and fully genotyped for driver mutations and CNVs associated with LGG. This allowed for successful detection of subtype-specific genetic markers that reliably predict poor clinical outcome in each WHO subtype: NOTCH1 mutations in Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel; PIK3R1 mutations and altered RB pathway genes in Astrocytoma IDH-mut; and co-occurrence of gain of chromosome 7p, loss of chromosome 10q, and TERT promoter mutation in IDH-wildtype LGGs.
NOTCH1 mutations have been reported in a wide variety of human cancers, including gliomas. Depending on cancer type, these mutations result in different functional consequences, corresponding to discrete mutational hotspots.3,13,33–36 In LGGs most frequently observed in Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel, NOTCH1 mutations almost invariably affect the epidermal growth factor–like domain, leading to loss of protein function; consistent with this, inactivation of Notch or its mediators can induce accelerated glioma growth.3,13,37,38 These mutations were more frequently found in relapsed tumors than diagnostic samples38 and were significantly associated with positive gadolinium enhancement in preoperative MRI and grade III (vs grade II) histology, suggesting their roles in aggressive phenotypes. In accordance with this, NOTCH1 mutations were found to be independent predictors of poor clinical outcomes in the JPN cohort. The negative effect was statistically significant only in Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel cases from the JPN cohort, but not in the cohort from TCGA or in other LGG subtypes. However, the low frequencies of NOTCH1 mutations in Astrocytoma IDH-mut (n = 5 [5%]) and IDH-wildtype LGGs (n = 3 [5%]) precluded a precise evaluation of their effects in these LGG subtypes. Also, the significantly shorter median follow-up time in the cohort from TCGA (median 1.71 y) might not be sufficient to detect the effect on long-term survival of NOTCH1 mutations, which made a substantial contribution to the statistical difference in the JPN cohort (Table 1). Future studies are warranted to address these points, using a larger cohort of patients with long-term follow-up periods.
In Astrocytoma IDH-mut, PIK3R1 mutations and altered RB pathway genes were significantly and independently associated with a poor clinical outcome, which was similar to that in GBM, IDH-mutant. This is in agreement with previous studies reporting negative effects of PIK3R1 mutations and CDKN2A deletions on survival in this LGG subtype.15,17 These lesions accelerate cellular proliferation and lead to genomic/chromosomal instability, likely by cell-cycle dysregulation or aberrant receptor tyrosine kinase signaling.39,40 WHO grade has long been correlated with OS among patients with LGGs. However, some studies did not confirm this in IDH-mutant molecular subtypes.41,42 In fact, in our JPN cohort, WHO grade was not associated with patient prognosis in either univariate or multivariate Cox analyses in Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel or Astrocytoma IDH-mut, suggesting that it may not be appropriate to use WHO grade as a prognostic factor for these LGG subtypes.
As for IDH-wildtype LGGs, we previously demonstrated that this subtype could be further classified into 2 subcategories, tumors of WHO grade II and grade III histology, based on the fact that grades II and III tumors have substantially different clinical outcomes.3 In this study, we not only confirmed our previous result, but also identified high-risk genetic markers significantly associated with a poor prognosis, independently of WHO grade. In combination with WHO grade, the co-occurrence of these high-risk genetic lesions (ie, gain of chromosome 7p, loss of chromosome 10q, and mutation of the TERT promoter) can be used to stratify patients with IDH-wildtype LGGs into 2 discrete subsets with substantially different clinical outcome, genetic profile, median age at diagnosis, and pattern of DNA methylation.
In conclusion, we delineated a set of subtype-specific markers that predict poor clinical outcomes in LGGs. The subsets of each LGG subtype with these markers represent high-risk tumors, accounting for 46%–47% of Oligodendroglioma IDH-mut/1p19q-codel, 7% of Astrocytoma IDH-mut, and 53%–75% of IDH-wildtype LGGs in the JPN and TCGA cohorts. In particular, the prognosis of high-risk tumors in Astrocytoma IDH-mut and IDH-wildtype LGGs was extremely poor. These tumors may actually represent bona fide GBM, even though they lack some of its hallmark features, including necrosis and vascular proliferation.1,43 Patients with these high-risk LGGs could benefit from intensive therapy conventionally used for GBM, and this possibility should be tested in clinical trials.
Supplementary Material
Supplementary material is available at Neuro-Oncology online.
Funding
This work was supported by grants-in-aid for Scientific Research (22134006 and 15H05909 to S.O.; 23107010 to A.N.), a grant-in-aid for Young Scientists (Start-up) (15H06339 to K.A.), a grant-in-aid from the Japan Brain Foundation (to H.S.), the Funding Program for World-Leading Innovative Research and Development on Science and Technology (to S.O.), the Project for Development of Innovative Research on Cancer Therapeutics from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, AMED (15cm0106056h0005 and 16cm0106501h0001 to S.O.), and the High Performance Computing Infrastructure System Research Project (hp150232 to S.O.).
Funding
This work was supported by grants-in-aid for Scientific Research (22134006 and 15H05909 to S.O.; 23107010 to A.N.), a grant-in-aid for Young Scientists (Start-up) (15H06339 to K.A.), a grant-in-aid from the Japan Brain Foundation (to H.S.), the Funding Program for World-Leading Innovative Research and Development on Science and Technology (to S.O.), the Project for Development of Innovative Research on Cancer Therapeutics from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, AMED (15cm0106056h0005 and 16cm0106501h0001 to S.O.), and the High Performance Computing Infrastructure System Research Project (hp150232 to S.O.).
Conflict of interest statement. We declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all patients who generously agreed to participate in this study. We gratefully acknowledge the consortium of TCGA and all of its members for making these invaluable data publicly available.
References
Author notes
These authors jointly directed this work.
These authors equally contributed to this work.