Open Access

The prognostic value of MGMT promoter status by pyrosequencing assay for glioblastoma patients’ survival: a meta-analysis

World Journal of Surgical Oncology201614:261

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-1012-4

Received: 19 June 2016

Accepted: 28 September 2016

Published: 12 October 2016

Abstract

Background

The prognostic value of the status of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation measured by pyrosequencing assay (PSQ) among glioblastoma (GBM) patients was examined in meta-analysis.

Methods

Eligible studies that reported the association between the status of MGMT promoter methylation by PSQ and prognostic value of GBM patients from three electronic databases, like PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were involved in meta-analysis. Using Stata 11.0, the summarized hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and the progression-free survival (PFS) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

Results

Eleven studies were included to evaluate the relationship between the status of MGMT promoter methylation and GBM patients’ survival. Overall, regardless of the cut-off value of methylation status of MGMT promoter by PSQ, methylated-positive patients were evidently associated with an improved HRs for OS (HRs = 0.50, 95 % CI = 0.35–0.66). For summary, progression-free survival (PFS) from four studies, the prognostic effect was also found (HRs = 0.56, 95 % CI = 0.32–0.80).

Conclusion

Methylation positivity of MGMT promoter by PSQ was related to an increased survival in GBM patients. Thus, the status of MGMT promoter methylation by PSQ might be used to be a prognostic biomarker, and GBM patients might have a vested interest in clinical application of standardized PSQ.

Keywords

MGMTMeta-analysisGlioblastomaHazard ratioPyrosequencingSurvivalPrognostic biomarker

Background

Glioblastoma (GBM), accounting for approximately 16 % of primary brain and central nervous system tumors in adults [1], has a poor prognosis with the median survival no more than 12 months [2], despite advances in chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, and multi-modal treatments. A number of studies document that some molecular markers, such as IDH1/IDH2 [3], 1p/19q co-deletion [4], and MGMT promoter methylation [5], have become an integral part of tumor assessment in modern oncology practice. In 2016, the new World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (2016 CNS WHO) was launched to replace the 2007 CNS WHO. The new classification system integrates phenotypic and genotypic diagnoses, for example, GBM, on the basis of histological diagnosis, which is grouped into GBM IDH-wildtype, GBM IDH-mutant, and GBM NOS (not otherwise specified) with IDH mutational status; thus, patients will benefit from greater diagnostic accuracy as well as improved patient management and more accurate determinations of prognosis and treatment response [6]. Although classification has been established on the basis of IDH status among GBM, some studies indicated that IDH mutation, MGMT promoter methylation status, 1p/19q loss independently associated with favorable outcome in temozolomide (TMZ) + radiotherapy-treated GBM patients. Meanwhile, it was found that MGMT promoter methylation is a predictive marker for benefit from alkylating agents only in high-grade glioma patients with IDH1 wildtype, but 1p/19q loss in high-grade glioma patients with IDH1 mutant [7]. Nevertheless, in this meta-analysis, the predictive or prognostic role of MGMT promoter methylation among GBM was assessed.

MGMT, a DNA repair protein, removes the alkylation of the O6 position of guanine which is the most cytotoxic lesion induced by alkylating agent chemotherapy, such as nitrosoureas or temozolomide (TMZ) [8, 9]. Low-level expression of MGMT protein causes impaired ability to repair DNA. Hyper-methylation of MGMT gene promoter might result in silencing gene expression and further down-regulate protein concentrations [10]. Since a landmark study by Hegi [11] 11 years ago, numerous studies have confirmed that methylation status of MGMT promoter can serve as a predictive factor for the outcome of GBM patients aged less than 60 years, following alkylating agent chemotherapy [12, 13], or a prognostic factor in non-elderly GBM patients [14]. Compared with other assays, like immunohistochemistry with poor inter-observer reliability and time-consuming procedure, direct testing status of MGMT promoter methylation might be convenient for clinical application. Varying quantitative and qualitative assays, such as MSP, methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting and PSQ, and bisulfite sequencing [15] have been used to examine the methylation status of CpGs island that mainly regulates MGMT protein expression at the epigenetic level, in MGMT promoter. Among these techniques, PSQ is a sequence-by-synthesis method that is the only method respectively analyzing methylation levels of each CpGs and providing quantitative information on the percentage of CpGs methylation [16].

Thus, to our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis that has evaluated the role of MGMT promoter methylation in predicting the prognosis of GBM patients. In this meta-analysis, because of the prognostic value of methylation status of MGMT promoter by PSQ for survival of GBM patients unclear and no in consensus, we summarized relevant data to quantify the prognostic value of methylation status of MGMT promoter by PSQ, using standard meta-analysis techniques, regardless of impact factors, such as age of patients, therapy modality, etc.

Methods

We carried out review and meta-analysis following the Cochrane Handbook of systematic reviews and reported results on the basis of Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement.

Literature screening

For obtaining a maximum of interested studies, we retrieved literatures in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library (as of Jan. 2016) using the following searching strategy: “(glioblastoma OR glioma) AND (MGMT OR O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase) AND methylation”. It was performed with English restriction and limited to human studies.

Study selection

The publications were firstly screened by title and abstract by two reviewers, and substantially full-text of potentially eligible studies was reviewed for potential studies under definitive inclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria: (1) studies published the correlation between methylation status of MGMT promoter by PSQ and patients’ outcome; and (2) available data of HR and 95 % CI or p value for OS as primary outcome or PFS among GBM patients were extracted, irrespectively of the threshold of methylation status of MGMT promoter the amount of CpGs islands measured by PSQ, disease stage, treatment strategy (whether or not treated with alkylating agent chemotherapy), sample source, etc. Any disagreement or discrepancies were resolved by discussion between less than three reviews.

Data extraction

From eligible publications, general profiles, like the name of the first author, publication year, country, age of patients, the number of patients, cut-off value of methylation status of MGMT promoter by PSQ, sample source, and treatment experience, as well as disease status, were extracted through two independent reviewers. HRs that were correlated with methylation status of MGMT promoter by PSQ and survival of GBM patients (OS or PFS as outcome) were extracted in multivariate analysis and pooled.

Assessment of methodological quality

In the context of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), which consists of eight items that are categorized into three groups (selection, comparability, and outcome/exposure), two reviewers were involved to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies. Studies with scores of 1–3, 4–6, and 7–9 were considered as low, intermediate, and high quality, respectively.

Data analysis

For correlation between the status of MGMT promoter methylation by PSQ and patients’ survival, HRs were computed and pooled from each included studies in two cohorts. The fixed-effects or random-effects models were chosen depending on heterogeneity between included studies (assessed by the I 2 statistic test). The I 2 values of 0 to 40 %, 30 to 60 %, 50 to 90 %, and 75 to 90 % indicate no important, moderate, substantial, and considerable heterogeneity, respectively [17]. For significant heterogeneity of studies, we attempted to identify the sources of variation between studies by analyzing the subgroup results and excluding them. Finally, random-effects model was used to pool the results. Because of the amount limitation of eligible studies, sensitivity and publication bias was not undertaken. In this meta-analysis, p value was transformed into 95 % CI through formulas [18].

In the two-tailed test, the results were considered to be statistically significant with a p value of <0.05. The meta-analysis was performed with Stata 11.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Austin, TX).

All analyses were based on the previous published studies; thus, no ethical approval and patient consent were required.

Results

Study selection and ascertainment

Using our searching strategy, 2819 publications were found from three database, PubMed-MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library. Following reviewing titles and abstracts, 2601 publications were excluded and 218 candidates were included for further assessment. Among these 218 potential publication candidates, ten eligible publications which reported results of 11 studies, all being observational study, were chosen and could successfully extract data for meta-analysis, after excluding review, letter care report, no interesting reports in publication. Flowchart of identification for eligible studies was shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

The flowchart of publication search and selection of eligible studies

Basic characteristic and quality assessment of eligible studies

The main characteristic of the eligible studies was shown in Table 1. All the included 11 prospective cohort studies investigated the association between methylation status of MGMT promoter by PSQ and GBM patients’ survival and reported HR for OS. Of these, four studies presented HR for PFS [1922]. The age of GBM patients enrolled in the 11 studies ranged widely. In five studies [19, 2225], 10 % was referred as the cut-off value of the presence of MGMT promoter methylation, 9 % in four studies [2628], and 8 % in two studies [20, 21]. The amount of CpGs tested by PSQ did not reach an agreement in eligible studies, but at least five CpGs were measured. Of the 11 included studies, not all GBM patients were treated with alkylating agent in three studies [2325, 28].
Table 1

The profiles of eligible studies

Publication year

Study

Country

Age of patient

Mean (range or standard derivation)

Cut-off value by PSQ

CpGs

Sample source

No. patientsa

Disease status

Treatment experience

Score in NOS

2015

Dae Cheol Kim

Korea

51.4 (26.4–87.2)

9 %

5 CpGs

FFPE

104

Newly diagnosed GMB

No all patients treated with TMZ

5

2015

Robert W. Rapkinsb

Australia

58.3 (25.0–85.0)

9 %

5 CpGs

FFPE

303

Newly diagnosed GMB

Surgery + radiotherapy + TMZ+ adjuvant TMZ

6

2015

Robert W. Rapkinsb

Australia

57.8 (22.3–84.3)

9 %

5 CpGs

FFPE

303

Newly diagnosed GMB

Surgery + radiotherapy + TMZ+ adjuvant TMZ

5

2014

Veronique Quillien

France

58 (21.0–73.0)

9 %

16 CpGs

FFPE

89

Newly diagnosed GMB

Stupp protocol

5

2014

Vincent Peter Collins

UK

53 (41–60)

10 %

16 CpGs

FFPE

275

Recurrent high-grade GMB

PCV OR two TMZ schedules

5

2014

Dong Shen

China

56 (35–71)

10 %

12 CpGs

FFPE

128

Recurrent high-grade GMB

Surgery + radiotherapy + TMZ+ adjuvant TMZ

5

2012

Guido Reifenberge

Germany

74.1 (70.0–86.6)

8 %

5 CpGs

Frozen sample

85

Newly diagnosed GMB

Treated with alkylating agents

5

2012

Veronique Quillien

France

57.5 (21.0–73.0)

8 %

5 CpGs

FFPE and frozen sample

99

Newly diagnosed GMB

Standard care treatment

5

2011

Miyuki Uno

Brazil

50.2 (14.6)

10 %

5 CpGs

Frozen sample

29

Newly diagnosed GMB

Adjuvant radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy (carmustine)

5

2011

Shani Mulholland

Sweden

NA

10 %

16 CpGs

Frozen sample

362

GMB

Surgery + adjuvant treatment (no TMZ)

5

2009

J Dunn

UK

55 (18–68)

10 %

12 CpGs

FFPE or frozen sample

108

Newly diagnosed GMB

Surgery + radiotherapy + TMZ+ adjuvant TMZ

5

Abbreviations: FFPE formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded, PCV chemotherapy procotol: procarbazine, CCNU, and vincristine

aThe number of patients whose methylation status of MGMT promoter was measured successfully by PSQ

bThis publication included two independently studies, Australian cohort (AGOG) and American cohort (UCLA)

In the context of Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS), the mythological quality of eligible publications was evaluated by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the included 11 studies was evaluated to be intermediate with the score range of 5–6 points, and no study obtained full marks. In category selection, four items, such as representativeness of the exposed cohort, selection of the non-exposed cohort, ascertainment of exposure, and demonstration that outcome of interest, were fully depicted in the 11 studies. In comparability, no control of confounding factors was reported in the 11 eligible studies with all studies scoring 0 point. Only one study depicted that researchers were independently blinded to assess MGMT status by PQS and patients outcomes, and finally, follow-up duration and losses of subjects were not described in all studies (shown in Table 1).

Overall survival

HR and 95 % CI could be extracted or calculated from p value. In this meta-analysis, HRs for OS were analyzed and summarized from three subgroups in which 8, 9, or 10 % as cut-off value was carried out to consider the presence of MGMT promoter methylation in the 11 studies.

In general, MGMT promoter methylation was associated with an HRs for improved OS of 0.50 (95 % CI 0.35–0.66) with statistical heterogeneity (I = 84.5 %, p = 0.000, random-effects model). The results of subgroup analysis showed that subgroup classification could not reduce heterogeneous level with the value of I no less than 85 % (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Forest plots of the association of methylation status of MGMT promoter by PSQ with OS among GBM patients

After rejecting the data from four studies in which no all patients undergoing alkylating agent chemotherapy, general HRs was 0.42 (95 % CI 0.31–0.53) with statistical heterogeneity (I = 67.8 %, p = 0.005). In addition, in subgroup 9 %, no obvious heterogeneity was evidenced (p < 0.05), and heterogeneity was still in existence in subgroup 10 and 8 % (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3

Forest plots of the association of methylation status of MGMT promoter by PSQ with OS among GBM patients after deleting data from four studies in which no all patients treated with alkylating agent

Progression-free survival

For HRs of PFS, data from four studies were used in meta-analysis, and no subgroups were classified because of limited amounts of eligible studies. Following pooling results in random-effects model, the GBM patients with methylated MGMT promoter had a significantly longer PFS (HR = 0.56, 95 % CI = 0.32–0.80) compared with un-methylated MGMT promoter with statistic heterogeneity (I = 80.6 %, p = 0.001) (shown in Fig. 4).
Fig. 4

HRs for PFS with methylated-positive versus un-methylated cohorts

Discussion

According to profiling studies of GBM by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) project, varying subtypes with unique biological behaviors, were identified, such as proneural, neural, classical, and mesenchymal [29] or proneural, proliferative, and mesenchymal [30]. In the context of subtypes by TCGA, Brennan CW et al. found that MGMT promoter status distinguished responders from non-responders to TMZ among samples classified as classical but not among samples classified as proneural, mesenchymal, and neural, evidencing that MGMT promoter methylation might only have such predictive validity in classical subtype GBM [31]. The high rate of MGMT promoter hypermethylation was found long-term GBM survivors that would be of the proneural subtype [32]. In addition, despite methylated-positive MGMT promoter has been recognized with predictive value for ≤60-year-old GBM patients treated with TMZ [12, 13] and prognostic value in non-elderly GBM patients [14], the results are controversial between different studies. The reasons for inconsistency in the results might be that statistical limitation (e.g., small sample size), difference ethnicity of involved subjects, or methodological diversity (e.g., the amount of CpGs detected by PSQ or cut-off value for methylated positivity or tumor sample source). Therefore, the meta-analysis of combining the results from different studies can present direct and definite evidences. Meanwhile, expanding sample-size in the context of homogeneity among including studies in meta-analysis might increase statistical power.

In current meta-analysis, subgroup analysis based on varied cut-off value of MGMT promoter methylation was preformed to address abovementioned issues, and further provide up-to-date clinical evidence for applying MGMT promoter methylation by PSQ as a prognostic biomarker for GBM patients. The result of this meta-analysis showed that, compared with patients with non-methylated MGMT promoter, methylated-positive patients had longer OS and PFS. However, statistical heterogeneity among studies that reported HRs of OS or PFS was observed. Because of adopted varied cut-off value ranged from 8 to 10 % for methylation positivity of MGMT promoter in included studies, three subgroups with cut-off value 10, 9, and 8 % were divided, and then subgroup analysis was undertook according to cut-off value in order to identify the association between the cut-off value and heterogeneity, but the significant heterogeneity was still found. In addition, following simply rejecting data from four studies in which no all GBM patients treated with alkylating agent or from two studies enrolling recurrent GBMs patients, obvious heterogeneity was still in existence. Therefore, the cut-off value of MGMT promoter positivity with PSQ and therapy modality might not be the main reason for high level of heterogeneity in this meta-analysis. Other factors, such as sample size, age, and follow-up duration were investigated, but no heterogeneous sources were identified.

Methylation of CpGs sites in MGMT promoter, one of the major post-transcriptional mechanisms reducing MGMT protein expression, has been found in 40 % of cancer such as glioma and colorectal cancer and in 25 % of non-small cell lung carcinoma, lymphoma, and head and neck carcinoma [33, 34]. Furthermore, the extent of methylation has an impact on the expression levels of MGMT protein [35]. Thus, it is mechanistically reasonable that the methylation status of MGMT promoter might be regarded as a prognostic biomarker for GBM patients treated with alkylating agent. In comparison with other assay, PSQ yields quantitative results, and high intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility for a commercially available MGMT PSQ kit is documented in a ring trial [36]. However, standard operation procedure of PSQ should be established, and accuracy should be determined soon.

There were some limitations in this meta-analysis. Firstly, the number of eligible studies included was limited, and outcome measures recorded differently in the studies. Especially, only four studies were involved for PFS, so the results should be interpreted with cautions. Secondly, statistical heterogeneity among these studies that reported HR for OS and PFS were observed, and the source of heterogeneity were not able to be determined simply by subgroup analysis on the basis of the cut-off value of MGMT promoter methylation by PSQ or rejecting data from four studies in which no all patients underwent alkylating agent chemotherapy. Thirdly, due to limited number of studies included in this meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias were not been evaluated. Fourthly, the cohort studies included in this meta-analysis had an intermediate methodological quality with no more than 6 points in NOS, so there were some methodological issues. Lastly, although Karnofsky performance score, age, sex, etc. were analyzed as potential prognostic factors in multivariate analysis in the 11 eligible studies, no studies in this meta-analysis explained the control of confounding factors.

Conclusions

In spite of above limitations, our meta-analysis indicated that the methylation status of MGMT promoter were related to the improved prognosis by PSQ and should be considered as a strong prognostic biomarker among GBM patients post-TMZ therapy. According to methylation status by PSQ, stratification medication might be applied among GBM patients in coming clinical practice.

Abbreviations

CI: 

Confidence interval

GBM: 

Glioblastoma

HRs: 

Hazard ratios

MGMT: 

O6-Methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase

NOS: 

Newcastle-Ottawa scale

OS: 

Overall survival

PFS: 

Progression-free survival

PSQ: 

Pyrosequencing assay

TMZ: 

Temozolomide

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

No financial support.

Availability of data and materials

Supplementary raw data.

Authors’ contributions

HLZ wrote the first draft of the manuscript and contributed to the data collection and analysis. SYW and CWS contributed to the data collection. YHZ and LL participated in the manuscript drafting, revising, and study design. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

No applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

No applicable.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Neurology, The First Hospital of Yichang, Institute of Translational Neuroscience, Three Gorges University College of Medicine
(2)
Wuhan Institute of Biological Products Co., Ltd.

References

  1. Dolecek TA, Propp JM, Stroup NE, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2005–2009. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14(5):1–49.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, et al. The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131(6):803–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Zou P, Xu H, Chen P, et al. IDH1/IDH2 mutations define the prognosis and molecular profiles of patients with gliomas: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8:e68782.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Polivka Jr J, Polivka J, Repik T, et al. Co-deletion of 1p/19q as prognostic and predictive biomarker for patients in West Bohemia with anaplastic oligodendroglioma. Anticancer Res. 2016;36(1):471–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Weller M, Tabatabai G, Kästner B, et al. MGMT promoter methylation is a strong prognostic biomarker for benefit from dose-intensified temozolomide re-challenge in progressive glioblastoma: the DIRECTOR trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(9):2057–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Wirsching HG, Weller M. The Role of Molecular Diagnostics in the Management of Patients with Gliomas. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2016;17(10):51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Siegal T. Clinical relevance of prognostic and predictive molecular markers in gliomas. Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg. 2016;43:91–108.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Liu L, Gerson SL. Targeted modulation of MGMT: clinical implication. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(2):328–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Esteller M, Garcia-Foncillas J, Andion E, et al. Inactivation of the DNA-repair gene MGMT and the clinical response of gliomas to alkylating agents. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(23):1350–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Berghoff AS, Hainfellner JA, Marosi C, et al. Assessing MGMT methylation status and its current impact on treatment in glioblastoma. CNS Oncol. 2015;4(1):47–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hegi ME, Diserens AC, Gorlia T, et al. MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblstoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(10):997–1003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Wick W, Platten M, Meisner C, et al. Temozolomide chemotherapy alone versus radiotherapy alone for malignant astrocytoma in the elderly: the NOA-08 randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(7):707–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Malmström A, Grønberg BH, Marosi C, et al. Temozolomide versus standard 6-week radiotherapy versus hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients older than 60 years with glioblastoma: the Nordic randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(9):916–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Berghoff AS, Preusser M. Clinical neuropathology practice guide 06-2012: MGMT testing in elderly glioblastoma patients—yes, but how? Clin Neuropathol. 2012;31(6):405–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Lalezari S, Chou AP, Tran A, et al. Combined analysis of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase protein expression and promoter methylation provides optimized prognostication of glioblastoma outcome. Neuro Oncol. 2013;15(3):370–81.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Weller M, Stupp R, Reifenberger G, et al. MGMT promoter methylation in malignant gliomas: ready for personalized medicine? Nat Rev Neurol. 2010;6(1):39–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Higgin JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2011; Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from http://www.cochrane.org/handbook.
  18. Jie L, Wendong L. Theory & practice of systematic review/meta-analysis. China: Military medical science press; 2013.Google Scholar
  19. Shen D, Liu T, Lin Q, et al. MGMT promoter methylation correlates with an overall survival benefit in Chinese high-grade glioblastoma patients treated with radiotherapy and alkylating agent-based chemotherapy: a single-institution study. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e107558.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Reifenberger G, Hentschel B, Felsberg J, et al. Predictive impact of MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma of the elderly. Int J Cancer. 2012;131(6):1342–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Quillien V, Lavenu A, Karayan-Tapon L, et al. Comparative assessment of 5 methods (methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction, MethyLight, pyrosequencing, methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting, and immunohistochemistry) to analyze O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltranferase in a series of 100 glioblastoma patients. Cancer. 2012;118(17):4201–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Dunn J, Baborie A, Alam F, et al. Extent of MGMT promoter methylation correlates with outcome in glioblastomas given temozolomide and radiotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(1):124–31.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Collins VP, Ichimura K, Di Y, Pearson D, et al. Prognostic and predictive markers in recurrent high grade glioma; results from the BR12 randomised trial. Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2014;2:68.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Uno M, Oba-Shinjo SM, Camargo AA, et al. Correlation of MGMT promoter methylation status with gene and protein expression levels in glioblastoma. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011;66(10):1747–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Mulholland S, Pearson DM, Hamoudi RA, et al. MGMT CpG island is invariably methylated in adult astrocytic and oligodendroglial tumors with IDH1 or IDH2 mutations. Int J Cancer. 2012;131(5):1104–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rapkins RW, Wang F, Nguyen HN, et al. The MGMT promoter SNP rs16906252 is a risk factor for MGMT methylation in glioblastoma and is predictive of response to temozolomide. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17(12):1589–98.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Quillien V, Lavenu A, Sanson M, et al. Outcome-based determination of optimal pyrosequencing assay for MGMT methylation detection in glioblastoma patients. J Neurooncol. 2014;116(3):487–96.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim DC, Kim KU, Kim YZ. Prognostic role of methylation status of the MGMT promoter determined quantitatively by pyrosequencing in glioblastoma patients. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2016;59(1):26–36.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Verhaak R, Hoadley K, Purdom E, et al. Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell. 2010;17(1):98–110.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Noushmehr H, Weisenberger D, Diefes K, et al. Identification of a cpg island methylator phenotype that defines a distinct subgroup of glioma. Cancer Cell. 2010;17(5):510–22.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Brennan CW, Verhaak RG, McKenna A, et al. The somatic genomic landscape of glioblastoma. Cell. 2013;155(2):462–77.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Haynes HR, Camelo-Piragua S, Kurian KM. Prognostic and predictive biomarkers in adult and pediatric gliomas: toward personalized treatment. Front Oncol. 2014;24(4):47.Google Scholar
  33. Esteller M, Hamilton SR, Burger PC, et al. Inactivation of the DNA repair gene O6-methylguanine-DNAmethyltransferase by promoter hyper-methylation is a common event in primary human neoplasia. Cancer Res. 1999;59(4):793–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Cabrini G, Fabbri E, Lo Nigro C, et al. Regulation of expression of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase and the treatment of glioblastoma (Review). Int J Oncol. 2015;47(2):417–28.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Siegal T. Clinical impact of molecular biomarkers in gliomas. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22(3):437–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Preusser M, Berghoff AS, Manzl C, et al. Clinical Neuropathology practice news 1-2014: pyrosequencing meets clinical and analytical performance criteria for routine testing of MGMT promoter methylation status in glioblastoma. Clin Neuropathol. 2014;33(1):6–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement