The O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase gene (MGMT) is methylated in several cancers, including gliomas. However, the functional role of cysteine-phosphate-guanine (CpG) island (CGI) methylation in MGMT silencing is still controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate whether MGMT CGI methylation correlates inversely with RNA expression of MGMT in glioblastomas and to determine the CpG region whose methylation best reflects the level of expression. The methylation level of CpG sites that are potentially related to expression was investigated in 54 glioblastomas by pyrosequencing, a highly quantitative method, and analyzed with respect to their MGMT mRNA expression status. Three groups of patients were identified according to the methylation pattern of all 52 analyzed CpG sites. Overall, an 85% rate of concordance was observed between methylation and expression (p < 0.0001). When analyzing each CpG separately, six CpG sites were highly correlated with expression (p < 0.0001), and two CpG regions could be used as surrogate markers for RNA expression in 81.5% of the patients. This study indicates that there is good statistical agreement between MGMT methylation and expression, and that some CpG regions better reflect MGMT expression than do others. However, if transcriptional repression is the key mechanism in explaining the higher chemosensitivity of MGMT-methylated tumors, a substantial rate of discordance should lead clinicians to be cautious when deciding on a therapeutic strategy based on MGMT methylation status alone.
The methylation status of the O6-methylguanine-methyltransferase promoter (MGMTP) was evaluated in 68 low-grade gliomas treated by neoadjuvant temozolomide. Methylated MGMTP was detected in 63 of 68 (92.6 %) patients and was a favorable predictor of progression-free survival as compared with unmethylated MGMTP tumors (p < 0.0001). Assessment of MGMTP status could help identifying low-grade gliomas patients more likely to respond to chemotherapy or to benefit from MGMT depletion strategies.
Background: In early breast cancer (BC), there has been a trend to escalate endocrine therapy (ET) and to de-escalate chemotherapy (CT). However, the impact of ET versus CT on the quality of life (QoL) of early BC patients is unknown. Here, we characterize the independent contribution of ET and CT on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 2 years after diagnosis. Patients and methods: We prospectively collected PROs in 4262 eligible patients using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30/BR23 questionnaires inside CANTO trial (NCT01993498). The primary outcome was the C30 summary score (C30-SumSc) at 2 years after diagnosis. Results: From eligible patients, 37.2% were premenopausal and 62.8% postmenopausal; 81.9% received ET and 52.8% CT. In the overall cohort, QoL worsened by 2 years after diagnosis in multiple functions and symptoms; exceptions included emotional function and future perspective, which improved over time. ET (P int ¼ 0.004), but not CT (P int ¼ 0.924), had a persistent negative impact on the C30-SumSc. In addition, ET negatively impacted role and social function, pain, insomnia, systemic therapy sideeffects, breast symptoms and further limited emotional function and future perspective recovery. Although CT had no impact on the C30-SumSc at 2-years it was associated with deteriorated physical and cognitive function, dyspnea, financial difficulties, body image and breast symptoms. We found a differential effect of treatment by menopausal status; in premenopausal patients, CT, despite only a non-significant trend for deteriorated C30-SumSc (P int ¼ 0.100), was more frequently associated with QoL domains deterioration than ET, whereas in postmenopausal patients, ET was more frequently associated with QoL deterioration, namely using the C30-SumSc (P int ¼ 0.004). Conclusion(s): QoL deterioration persisted at 2 years after diagnosis with different trajectories by treatment received. ET, but not CT, had a major detrimental impact on C30-SumSc, especially in postmenopausal women. These findings highlight the need to properly select patients for adjuvant ET escalation.
Extensive genomic and gene expression studies have been performed in gliomas, but the epigenetic alterations that characterize different subtypes of gliomas remain largely unknown. Here, we analyzed the methylation patterns of 807 genes (1536 CpGs) in a series of 33 low-grade gliomas (LGGs), 36 glioblastomas (GBMs), 8 paired initial and recurrent gliomas, and 9 controls. This analysis was performed with Illumina's Golden Gate Bead methylation arrays and was correlated with clinical, histological, genomic, gene expression, and genotyping data, including IDH1 mutations. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering resulted in 2 groups of gliomas: a group corresponding to de novo GBMs and a group consisting of LGGs, recurrent anaplastic gliomas, and secondary GBMs. When compared with de novo GBMs and controls, this latter group was characterized by a very high frequency of IDH1 mutations and by a hypermethylated profile similar to the recently described glioma CpG island methylator phenotype. MGMT methylation was more frequent in this group. Among the LGG cluster, 1p19q codeleted LGG displayed a distinct methylation profile. A study of paired initial and recurrent gliomas demonstrated that methylation profiles were remarkably stable across glioma evolution, even during anaplastic transformation, suggesting that epigenetic alterations occur early during gliomagenesis. Using the Cancer Genome Atlas data set, we demonstrated that GBM samples that had an LGG-like hypermethylated profile had a high rate of IDH1 mutations and a better outcome. Finally, we identified several hypermethylated and downregulated genes that may be associated with LGG and GBM oncogenesis, LGG oncogenesis, 1p19q codeleted LGG oncogenesis, and GBM oncogenesis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.