DNA methylation in glioblastoma: impact on gene expression and clinical outcome

International audienceBACKGROUND: Changes in promoter DNA methylation pattern of genes involved in key biological pathways have been reported in glioblastoma. Genome-wide assessments of DNA methylation levels are now required to decipher the epigenetic events involved in the aggressive phenotype of glioblastoma, and to guide new treatment strategies. RESULTS: We performed a whole-genome integrative analysis of methylation and gene expression profiles in 40 newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. We also screened for associations between the level of methylation of CpG sites and overall survival in a cohort of 50 patients uniformly treated by surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (STUPP protocol). The methylation analysis identified 616 CpG sites differentially methylated between glioblastoma and control brain, a quarter of which was differentially expressed in a concordant way. Thirteen of the genes with concordant CpG sites displayed an inverse correlation between promoter methylation and expression level in glioblastomas: B3GNT5, FABP7, ZNF217, BST2, OAS1, SLC13A5, GSTM5, ME1, UBXD3, TSPYL5, FAAH, C7orf13, and C3orf14. Survival analysis identified six CpG sites associated with overall survival. SOX10 promoter methylation status (two CpG sites) stratified patients similarly to MGMT status, but with a higher Area Under the Curve (0.78 vs. 0.71, p-value < 5e-04). The methylation status of the FNDC3B, TBX3, DGKI, and FSD1 promoters identified patients with MGMT-methylated tumors that did not respond to STUPP treatment (p-value < 1e-04). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first genome-wide integrative analysis of DNA methylation and gene expression profiles obtained from the same GBM cohort. We also present a methylome-based survival analysis for one of the largest uniformly treated GBM cohort ever studied, for more than 27,000 CpG sites. We have identified genes whose expression may be tightly regulated by epigenetic mechanisms and markers that may guide treatment decisions

Endocrinologic, neurologic, and visual morbidity after treatment for craniopharyngioma

Craniopharyngiomas are locally aggressive tumors which typically are focused in the sellar and suprasellar region near a number of critical neural and vascular structures mediating endocrinologic, behavioral, and visual functions. The present study aims to summarize and compare the published literature regarding morbidity resulting from treatment of craniopharyngioma. We performed a comprehensive search of the published English language literature to identify studies publishing outcome data of patients undergoing surgery for craniopharyngioma. Comparisons of the rates of endocrine, vascular, neurological, and visual complications were performed using Pearson’s chi-squared test, and covariates of interest were fitted into a multivariate logistic regression model. In our data set, 540 patients underwent surgical resection of their tumor. 138 patients received biopsy alone followed by some form of radiotherapy. Mean overall follow-up for all patients in these studies was 54 ± 1.8 months. The overall rate of new endocrinopathy for all patients undergoing surgical resection of their mass was 37% (95% CI = 33–41). Patients receiving GTR had over 2.5 times the rate of developing at least one endocrinopathy compared to patients receiving STR alone or STR + XRT (52 vs. 19 vs. 20%, χ2P < 0.00001). On multivariate analysis, GTR conferred a significant increase in the risk of endocrinopathy compared to STR + XRT (OR = 3.45, 95% CI = 2.05–5.81, P < 0.00001), after controlling for study size and the presence of significant hypothalamic involvement. There was a statistical trend towards worse visual outcomes in patients receiving XRT after STR compared to GTR or STR alone (GTR = 3.5% vs. STR 2.1% vs. STR + XRT 6.4%, P = 0.11). Given the difficulty in obtaining class 1 data regarding the treatment of this tumor, this study can serve as an estimate of expected outcomes for these patients, and guide decision making until these data are available