Background A feature of glioblastoma (GBM) is cellular and molecular heterogeneity, both within and between tumors. This variability causes a risk for sampling bias and potential tumor escape from future targeted therapy. Heterogeneous intratumor gene expression in GBM is well documented, but little is known regarding the epigenetic heterogeneity. Variability in DNA methylation within tumors would have implications for diagnostics, as methylation can be used for tumor classification, subtyping, and determination of the clinically used biomarker O 6 -methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase ( MGMT ) promoter methylation. We therefore aimed to profile the intratumor DNA methylation heterogeneity in GBM and its effect on diagnostic properties. Methods Three to 4 spatially separated biopsies per tumor were collected from 12 GBM patients. We performed genome-wide DNA methylation analysis and investigated intratumor variation. Results All samples were classified as GBM isocitrate dehydrogenase ( IDH ) wild type (wt)/mutated by methylation profiling, but the subclass differed within 5 tumors. Some GBM samples exhibited higher DNA methylation differences within tumors than between, and many cytosine-phosphate-guanine (CpG) sites (mean: 17 000) had different methylation levels within the tumors. MGMT methylation status differed in IDH mutated patients (1/1). Conclusions We demonstrated that intratumor DNA methylation heterogeneity is a feature of GBM. Although all biopsies were classified as GBM IDH wt/mutated by methylation analysis, the assigned subclass differed in samples from the same patient. The observed heterogeneity within tumors is important to consider for methylation-based biomarkers and future improvements in stratification of GBM patients.

Background: The T2-FLAIR mismatch sign is an imaging finding highly suggestive of isocitrate dehydrogenase mutated (IDH-mut) 1p19q non-codeleted (non-codel) gliomas (astrocytomas). In previous studies, it has shown excellent specificity but limited sensitivity for IDH-mut astrocytomas. Whether the mismatch sign is a marker of a clinically relevant subtype of IDH-mut astrocytomas is unknown. Methods: We included histopathologically verified supratentorial lower-grade gliomas (LGG) WHO grade II-III retrospectively during the period 2010-2016. In the period 2017-2018, patients with suspected LGG radiologically were prospectively included, and in this cohort other diagnoses than glioma could occur. Clinical, radiological and molecular data were collected. For clinical evaluation we included all patients with IDH-mut astrocytomas. In the 2010-2016 cohort DNA methylation analysis with Infinium MethylationEPIC BeadChip (Illumina) was performed for patients with an IDH-mut astrocytoma with available tissue. We aimed to examine the association of the T2-FLAIR mismatch sign with clinical factors and outcomes. Additionally, we evaluated the diagnostic reliability of the mismatch sign and its relation to methylation profiles. Results: Out of 215 patients with LGG, 135 had known IDH-mutation and 1p19q codeletion status. Fifty patients had an IDH-mut astrocytoma and 12 of these (24.0%) showed a mismatch sign. The sensitivity and specificity of the mismatch sign for IDH-mut detection were 26.4 and 97.6%, respectively. There were no differences between patients with an IDH-mut astrocytoma with or without mismatch sign when grouped according to T2-FLAIR mismatch sign with respect to baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes and methylation profiles. The overall interrater agreement between neuroradiologist and clinical neurosurgeons for the T2-FLAIR mismatch sign was significant when all 215 MRI examination assessed (κ = 0.77, p < 0.001, N = 215). Conclusion: The T2-FLAIR mismatch sign in patients with an IDH-mut astrocytoma is not associated with clinical presentation or outcome. It seems unlikely that the IDH-mut astrocytomas with mismatch sign represent a specific subentity. Finally, we have validated that the T2-FLAIR mismatch sign is a reliable and specific marker of IDH-mut astrocytomas.

Background DNA methylation profiling has facilitated and improved the classification of a wide variety of tumors of the central nervous system. In this study, we investigated the potential utility of DNA methylation profiling to achieve molecular diagnosis in adult primary diffuse lower-grade glioma (dLGG) according to WHO 2016 classification system. We also evaluated whether methylation profiling could provide improved molecular characterization and identify prognostic differences beyond the classical histological WHO grade together with IDH mutation status and 1p/19q codeletion status. All patients diagnosed with dLGG in the period 2007–2016 from the Västra Götaland region in Sweden were assessed for inclusion in the study. Results A total of 166 dLGG cases were subjected for genome-wide DNA methylation analysis. Of these, 126 (76%) were assigned a defined diagnostic methylation class with a class prediction score ≥ 0.84 and subclass score ≥ 0.50. The assigned methylation classes were highly associated with their IDH mutation status and 1p/19q codeletion status. IDH-wildtype gliomas were further divided into subgroups with distinct molecular features. Conclusion The stratification of the patients by methylation profiling was as effective as the integrated WHO 2016 molecular reclassification at predicting the clinical outcome of the patients. Our study shows that DNA methylation profiling is a reliable and robust approach for the classification of dLGG into molecular defined subgroups, providing accurate detection of molecular markers according to WHO 2016 classification.

Adult-type diffuse gliomas and meningiomas are the most common primary intracranial tumors of the central nervous system. DNA methylation profiling is a novel diagnostic technique increasingly used also in the clinic. Although molecular heterogeneity is well described in these tumors, DNA methylation heterogeneity is less studied. We therefore investigated the intratumor genetic and epigenetic heterogeneity in diffuse gliomas and meningiomas, with focus on potential clinical implications. We further investigated tumor purity as a source for heterogeneity in the tumors. We analyzed genome-wide DNA methylation profiles generated from 126 spatially separated tumor biopsies from 39 diffuse gliomas and meningiomas. Moreover, we evaluated five methods for measurement of tumor purity and investigated intratumor heterogeneity by assessing DNA methylation-based classification, chromosomal copy number alterations and molecular markers. Our results demonstrated homogeneous methylation-based classification of IDH-mutant gliomas and further corroborates subtype heterogeneity in glioblastoma IDH-wildtype and high-grade meningioma patients after excluding samples with low tumor purity. We detected a large number of differentially methylated CpG sites within diffuse gliomas and meningiomas, particularly in tumors of higher grades. The presence of CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion differed in one out of two patients with IDH-mutant astrocytomas, CNS WHO grade 4. We conclude that diffuse gliomas and high-grade meningiomas are characterized by intratumor heterogeneity, which should be considered in clinical diagnostics and in the assessment of methylation-based and molecular markers.

BackgroundWhile molecular insights to diffuse lower-grade glioma (dLGG) have improved the basis for prognostication, most established clinical prognostic factors come from the pre-molecular era. For instance, WHO grade as a predictor for survival in dLGG with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation has recently been questioned. We studied the prognostic role of WHO grade in molecularly defined subgroups and evaluated earlier used prognostic factors in the current molecular setting.Material and MethodsA total of 253 adults with morphological dLGG, consecutively included between 2007 and 2018, were assessed. IDH mutations, codeletion of chromosomal arms 1p/19q, and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A/B (CDKN2A/B) deletions were analyzed.ResultsThere was no survival benefit for patients with WHO grade 2 over grade 3 IDH-mut dLGG after exclusion of tumors with known CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion (n=157) (log-rank p=0.97). This was true also after stratification for oncological postoperative treatment and when astrocytomas and oligodendrogliomas were analyzed separately. In IDH-mut astrocytomas, residual tumor volume after surgery was an independent prognostic factor for survival (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01–1.03; p=0.003), but not in oligodendrogliomas (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00–1.03; p=0.15). Preoperative tumor size was an independent predictor in both astrocytomas (HR 1.03; 95% CI 1.00–1.05; p=0.02) and oligodendrogliomas (HR 1.05; 95% CI 1.01–1.09; p=0.01). Age was not a significant prognostic factor in multivariable analyses (astrocytomas p=0.64, oligodendrogliomas p=0.08).ConclusionOur findings suggest that WHO grade is not a robust prognostic factor in molecularly well-defined dLGG. Preoperative tumor size remained a prognostic factor in both IDH-mut astrocytomas and oligodendrogliomas in our cohort, whereas residual tumor volume predicted prognosis in IDH-mut astrocytomas only. The age cutoffs for determining high risk in patients with IDH-mut dLGG from the pre-molecular era are not supported by our results.