Identification of subsets of IDH-mutant glioblastomas with distinct epigenetic and copy number alterations and stratified clinical risks.

Abstract

Background IDH-mutant glioblastoma is classified by the 2016 CNS WHO as a group with good prognosis. However, the actual number of cases examined in the literature is relatively small. We hypothesize that IDH-mutant glioblastoma is not a uniform group and should be further stratified.MethodsWe conducted methylation profiles and estimated copy number variations of 57 IDH-mutant glioblastomas.ResultsOur results showed that 59.6% and 40.4% of tumors belonged to glioma-CpG island methylator phenotype (G-CIMP)-high and G-CIMP-low methylation subgroups, respectively. G-CIMP-low subgroup was associated with significantly worse overall survival (OS) as compared to G-CIMP-high (P = .005). CDKN2A deletion (42.1%) was the most common gene copy number variation, and was significantly associated with G-CIMP-low subgroup (P = .004). Other frequent copy number changes included mesenchymal–epithelial transition (MET) (5.3%), CCND2 (19.3%), PDGFRA (14.0%), CDK4 (12.3%), and EGFR (12.3%) amplification. Both CDKN2A deletion (P = .036) and MET amplification (P < .001) were associated with poor OS in IDH-mutant glioblastomas. Combined epigenetic signature and gene copy number variations separated IDH-mutant glioblastomas into Group 1 (G-CIMP-high), Group 2 (G-CIMP-low without CDKN2A nor MET alteration), and Group 3 (G-CIMP-low with CDKN2A and/or MET alteration). Survival analysis revealed Groups 1 and 2 exhibited a favorable OS (median survival: 619 d [20.6 mo] and 655 d [21.8 mo], respectively). Group 3 exhibited a significant shorter OS (median survival: 252 d [8.4 mo]). Multivariable analysis confirmed the independent prognostic significance of our Groups.Conclusions IDH-mutant glioblastomas should be stratified for risk with combined epigenetic signature and CDKN2A/MET status and some cases have poor outcome.