Noushmehr, Houtan

Abstract This review explores the pivotal role of preanalytical variables in bringing liquid biopsy approaches into the clinic for brain tumors. Preanalytical variables encompass a range of critical issues, from blood sample collection and handling to the impact of tumor heterogeneity and patient-specific factors. These variables introduce challenges such as false positives, false negatives, and variability in the analysis of tumor signals, which can hinder the diagnostic and prognostic utility of liquid biopsies. Understanding the nuances of preanalytical variables is essential for the successful implementation of liquid biopsy in clinical settings. This paper delves into strategies aimed at mitigating the influence of preanalytical variables by emphasizing the importance of standardized sample collection protocols, optimized sample processing and storage, quality control measures, and the integration of multiple liquid biopsy modalities.

Abstract Background Survival in patients with IDH1/2-mutant (mt) anaplastic astrocytomas is highly variable. We have used the prospective phase 3 CATNON trial to identify molecular factors related to outcome in IDH1/2mt anaplastic astrocytoma patients. Methods The CATNON trial randomized 751 adult patients with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-codeleted anaplastic glioma to 59.4 Gy radiotherapy +/− concurrent and/or adjuvant temozolomide. The presence of necrosis and/or microvascular proliferation was scored at central pathology review. Infinium MethylationEPIC BeadChip arrays were used for genome-wide DNA methylation analysis and the determination of copy number variations (CNV). Two DNA methylation-based tumor classifiers were used for risk stratification. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed using 1 of the 2 glioma-tailored NGS panels. The primary endpoint was overall survival measured from the date of randomization. Results Full analysis (genome-wide DNA methylation and NGS) was successfully performed on 654 tumors. Of these, 432 tumors were IDH1/2mt anaplastic astrocytomas. Both epigenetic classifiers identified poor prognosis patients that partially overlapped. A predictive prognostic Cox proportional hazard model identified that independent prognostic factors for IDH1/2mt anaplastic astrocytoma patients included; age, mini-mental state examination score, treatment with concurrent and/or adjuvant temozolomide, the epigenetic classifiers, PDGFRA amplification, CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion, PI3K mutations, and total CNV load. Independent recursive partitioning analysis highlights the importance of these factors for patient prognostication. Conclusion Both clinical and molecular factors identify IDH1/2mt anaplastic astrocytoma patients with worse outcome. These results will further refine the current WHO criteria for glioma classification.

Abstract Genome-wide association studies have identified 40 ovarian cancer risk loci. However, the mechanisms underlying these associations remain elusive. In this study, we conducted a two-pronged approach to identify candidate causal SNPs and assess underlying biological mechanisms at chromosome 9p22.2, the first and most statistically significant associated locus for ovarian cancer susceptibility. Three transcriptional regulatory elements with allele-specific effects and a scaffold/matrix attachment region were characterized and, through physical DNA interactions, BNC2 was established as the most likely target gene. We determined the consensus binding sequence for BNC2 in vitro, verified its enrichment in BNC2 ChIP-seq regions, and validated a set of its downstream target genes. Fine-mapping by dense regional genotyping in over 15,000 ovarian cancer cases and 30,000 controls identified SNPs in the scaffold/matrix attachment region as among the most likely causal variants. This study reveals a comprehensive regulatory landscape at 9p22.2 and proposes a likely mechanism of susceptibility to ovarian cancer. Significance: Mapping the 9p22.2 ovarian cancer risk locus identifies BNC2 as an ovarian cancer risk gene. See related commentary by Choi and Brown, p. 439