Sanson, Marc

Abstract Glioblastoma is the most common type of malignant primary brain tumor and a major cause of morbidity and mortality. In 2021, the World Health Organization updated the classification of Central Nervous System (CNS) tumors to restrict glioblastomas to isocitrate dehydrogenase-wildtype (IDHwt) tumors, improving understanding of the prognosis and optimal therapy for these tumors. This revision also enables more homogeneous populations of patients to be enrolled in clinical trials, facilitating the evaluation of novel therapies. In this updated consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), the current management of patients with glioblastoma is discussed. In addition, novel therapies such as immunotherapies, viral therapies, targeted molecular therapies, theranostics, and antibody–drug conjugates will be reviewed, as well as the current challenges and future directions for research.

Abstract Current transcriptomic classification of Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) has been ineffective to predict survival and therapeutic vulnerabilities. Recently, we proposed a four-group functional classification of GBM that included proliferative/progenitor, neuronal, mitochondrial and glycolytic/plurimetabolic subtypes with prognostic and therapeutic implications as the mitochondrial subtype carries the best survival and exhibits distinct sensitivity to mitochondrial OXPHOS inhibitors. To uncover novel therapeutic targets for each functional GBM subtype, we focused on protein kinases for their attractive features as both drivers and drug targets, with current availability of 62 FDA-approved inhibitors available for cancer precision therapeutics. We designed an unbiased integrative, machine learning-based proteomics/phosphoproteomics network for the identification of Master Kinases (MKs) responsible for effecting key phenotypic hallmarks of each of the four GBM subtypes. Here we report the identification and validation of protein kinase C delta (PRKCd) and DNA-PKcs as MKs that sustain the glycolytic/plurimetabolic and proliferative/progenitor GBM subtypes, respectively. Genetic and pharmacologic inactivation of PKCd in GBM patient-derived organoids of the glycolytic/plurimetabolic subtype blocked glucose uptake and lipid accumulation, resulting in marked anti-tumor effects. We also validated the role of PKCd in oncometabolic processes at the intersection between insulin, IGF, and lipid metabolism. DNA-PKcs was qualified as MK for the proliferative/progenitor GBM subtype, which is characterized by high basal level of replication stress. Biochemical experiments showed activation of DNA-PK in GBM patient-derived organoids of the proliferative/progenitor subgroup. Targeting DNA-PK in proliferative/progenitor GBM organoids with the clinically tested DNA-PKcs inhibitor nedisertib in association with gamma irradiation, the essential component of the standard of care for patients with GBM, led to an unsustainable level of DNA damage and massive GBM cell death selectively in this GBM subtype. As DNA-PKcs inhibitors have been introduced into clinical trials, our findings suggest that pre-selection of patient with PPR tumors is likely to enhance therapeutic success.

Abstract Tumor heterogeneity and broad therapeutic resistance are major challenges when treating patients with glioblastoma (GBM). Moreover, different from other cancer types, the absence of clinically useful classifiers for glioblastoma has hampered the translation of genomic and proteomic information to improve diagnosis and design precision therapeutics for patients. We analyzed a large dataset of human GBM to determine the multi-omics features characterizing the four GBM subtypes that we have recently identified through single-cell RNA sequencing and validated in bulk tumor analysis. Each subtype exhibits activation of unique functional traits that confer distinct therapeutic vulnerabilities. The examination of proteomics, phosphoproteomics, metabolomics, lipidomics and acetylomics data revealed that each GBM subtype has a coherent molecular structure driving the dominant function traceable in each analytical platform. Functional classes are not a specific attribute of GBM as we identified the same subtypes in breast and lung cancer. To test the translational impact of proteomic data in GBM, we developed an unbiased protein kinase signaling network approach for the selection of master kinases (MKs) aberrantly activated in each GBM subtype. We identified therapeutically actionable MKs and novel phosphorylation substrates that we experimentally validated. To provide rapid translation of the functional classifier for precision medicine in GBM, we developed a probabilistic classification tool which determines the probability that a patient’s GBM belongs to one of the four subtypes, exhibiting optimal performance when using RNA extracted from either frozen and paraffin-embedded tissues. The algorithm is publicly accessible and can be used to evaluate the association of therapeutic response with GBM subtypes and as tool for selection criteria in prospective clinical trials.

Abstract The proteogenomic characterization of human tumors has begun to uncover molecular attributes enriched in different tumor subtypes and proposed a panoply of subtype-specific targets. As these studies lacked experimental testing of potential targets in high-quality cell models accurately reflecting individual tumor subtypes, it remains unclear whether any of the proposed targets retained value for precision medicine. The absence of clinically useful classifiers further hampered translation of proteogenomic information to better diagnose and treat cancer patients. In the case of the brain tumor glioblastoma (GBM), such challenges are exacerbated by tumor heterogeneity and broad therapeutic resistance. Here, we analyzed a large dataset of human GBM to determine the multi-omics features that characterize four GBM subtypes we recently identified through single cell RNAseq analysis. Each subtype exhibits activation of unique hallmark functional traits including distinct sensitivity to inhibitors of mitochondrial respiration for the mitochondrial subtype. The inspection of proteomics, phosphoproteomics, metabolomics, lipidomics and acetylomics data revealed that each GBM subtype has a coherent molecular structure that drives the dominant function and can be extracted by each analytical platform. Stratification of tumors in four functional classes is not a specific attribute of GBM as we were able to unbiasedly identify the same subtypes in breast and lung cancer. To identify actionable targets in GBM we developed an unbiased protein kinase signaling network approach for the selection of master kinases aberrantly activated in each GBM subtype. The experimental follow-up using a library of annotated GBM patient derived organoids (PDOs) established that inhibition of DNA-PK with the clinically tested compound nedisertib radiosensitizes proliferative/progenitor PDOs by exacerbating replication stress-induced DNA damage in this GBM subtype. Furthermore, genetic and pharmacological tools qualified PKCδ as vulnerable target for the broadly resistant glycolytic/plurimetabolic GBM subtype. Thus, together with the targeting of mitochondrial GBM with OXPHOS inhibitors, the functional classification delivers experimentally validated actionable targets for three GBM subtypes. To provide rapid translation of the classifier for precision medicine in GBM, we developed a probabilistic classification tool which determines the probability that a patient’s GBM belongs to one of the four subtypes based on transcriptomic features and exhibits optimal performance when using RNA extracted from either frozen and paraffin embedded tissues. The algorithm is publicly accessible. It can be used in retrospective studies to evaluate the association of therapeutic response with GBM subtypes and as tool for selection criteria in prospective clinical trials. Citation Format: Simona Migliozzi, Young Taek Oh, Luciano Garofano, Hasanain Mohammad, Fulvio D'Angelo, Ryan D. Najac, Franck Bielle, Karima Mokhtari, Jann N. Sarkaria, Michele Ceccarelli, Marc Sanson, Anna Lasorella, Antonio Iavarone. Pathway based analysis of glioblastoma by multi-omics with applications in targeted therapy, prognosis and probabilistic classification [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 4014.

Abstract Purpose: In a post hoc analysis of the CATNON trial (NCT00626990), we explored whether adding temozolomide to radiotherapy improves outcome in patients with IDH1/2 wildtype (wt) anaplastic astrocytomas with molecular features of glioblastoma [redesignated as glioblastoma, isocitrate dehydrogenase–wildtype (IDH-wt) in the 2021 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of central nervous system tumors]. Patients and Methods: From the randomized phase III CATNON study examining the addition of adjuvant and concurrent temozolomide to radiotherapy in anaplastic astrocytomas, we selected a subgroup of IDH1/2wt and H3F3Awt tumors with presence of TERT promoter mutations and/or EGFR amplifications and/or combined gain of chromosome 7 and loss of chromosome 10. Molecular abnormalities including MGMT promoter methylation status were determined by next-generation sequencing, DNA methylation profiling, and SNaPshot analysis. Results: Of the 751 patients entered in the CATNON study, 670 had fully molecularly characterized tumors. A total of 159 of these tumors met the WHO 2021 molecular criteria for glioblastoma, IDH-wt. Of these patients, 47 received radiotherapy only and 112 received a combination of radiotherapy and temozolomide. There was no added effect of temozolomide on either overall survival [HR, 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82–1.71] or progression-free survival (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.61–1.24). MGMT promoter methylation was prognostic for overall survival, but was not predictive for outcome to temozolomide treatment either with respect to overall survival or progression-free survival. Conclusions: In this cohort of patients with glioblastoma, IDH-wt temozolomide treatment did not add benefit beyond that observed from radiotherapy, regardless of MGMT promoter status. These findings require a new well-powered prospective clinical study to explore the efficacy of temozolomide treatment in this patient population.

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 Glioblastomas are the most common form of malignant primary brain tumor and an important cause of morbidity and mortality. In recent years there have been important advances in understanding the molecular pathogenesis and biology of these tumors, but this has not translated into significantly improved outcomes for patients. In this consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), the current management of isocitrate dehydrogenase wildtype (IDHwt) glioblastomas will be discussed. In addition, novel therapies such as targeted molecular therapies, agents targeting DNA damage response and metabolism, immunotherapies, and viral therapies will be reviewed, as well as the current challenges and future directions for research.

Abstract Background The etiological basis of glioma is poorly understood. We have used genetic markers in a Mendelian Randomisation (MR) framework to examine if lifestyle, cardiometabolic and inflammatory factors influence the risk of glioma. This methodology reduces bias from confounding and is not affected by reverse causation. Methods We identified genetic instruments for 37 potentially modifiable risk factors and evaluated their association with glioma risk using data from a genome-wide association study of 12,488 glioma patients and 18,169 controls. We used the estimated odds ratio of glioma associated with each of the genetically defined traits to infer evidence for a causal relationship with the following exposures: lifestyle and dietary factors (height, plasma IGF-1, blood carnitine, blood methionine, blood selenium, blood zinc, circulating adiponectin, circulating carotenoids, iron status, serum calcium, vitamin [A1, B12, B6, E and 25-hydroxyvitamin D], fatty acids levels [mono-unsaturated, omega-3 and omega-6] and circulating fetuin-A); cardiometabolic factors (birth weight, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, total triglycerides, basal metabolic rate, body fat percentage, body mass index, fasting glucose, fasting proinsulin, HbA1C levels, diastolic and systolic blood pressure, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio) were included; inflammatory factors (C-reactive protein (CRP), plasma IL-6 sRa and serum IgE). Results After correction for the testing of multiple potential risk factors and excluding associations driven by one single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) no significant association with glioma risk was observed (i.e. PCorrected > 0.05). Conclusions This study did not provide evidence supporting any of the 37 factors examined as having a significant influence on glioma risk.

Abstract Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have so far identified 25 loci associated with glioma risk, with most showing specificity for either glioblastoma (GBM) or non-GBM tumors. The majority of these GWAS susceptibility variants reside in noncoding regions and the causal genes underlying the associations are largely unknown. Here we performed a transcriptome-wide association study to search for novel risk loci and candidate causal genes at known GWAS loci using Genotype-Tissue Expression Project (GTEx) data to predict cis-predicted gene expression in relation to GBM and non-GBM risk in conjunction with GWAS summary statistics on 12,488 glioma cases (6,183 GBM and 5,820 non-GBM) and 18,169 controls. Imposing a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of P < 5.69 × 10−6, we identified 31 genes, including GALNT6 at 12q13.33, as a candidate novel risk locus for GBM (mean Z = 4.43; P = 5.68 × 10−6). GALNT6 resides at least 55 Mb away from any previously identified glioma risk variant, while all other 30 significantly associated genes were located within 1 Mb of known GWAS-identified loci and were not significant after conditioning on the known GWAS-identified variants. These data identify a novel locus (GALNT6 at 12q13.33) and 30 genes at 12 known glioma risk loci associated with glioma risk, providing further insights into glioma tumorigenesis. Significance: This study identifies new genes associated with glioma risk, increasing understanding of how these tumors develop.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Glioma accounts for ~27% of all primary brain tumors and is responsible for ~13,000 cancer-related deaths in the US each year. Glioma tumors can be broadly classified into glioblastoma (GBM) and lower-grade non-GBM. Typically gliomas have a poor prognosis irrespective of medical care, with the most common form, GBM, having a five-year survival rate of only 5%. While genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have transformed our understanding of glioma susceptibility, individual studies have had limited power to identify risk loci. METHODS: We performed the largest glioma GWAS to date, comprising a meta-analysis of six existing GWAS (6,405 cases, 14,100 controls) as well as new GWAS from the Glioma International Case Control Consortium (GICC; 4,572 cases and 3,286 controls) and University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)-Mayo (1,519 cases, 804 controls), totaling 12,496 cases (6,191 classified as GBM, 5,819 as non-GBM) and 18,190 controls. RESULTS: We identified five new risk loci for GBM at 1p31.3 (rs12752552; near JAK1, P=2.04×10-9, odds ratio (OR)=1.22), 11q14.1 (rs11233250; P=9.95×10-10, OR=1.24), 16p13.3 (rs2562152; near MPG, P=1.93x10-8, OR=1.21), 16q12.1 (rs10852606; HEATR3, P=1.29×10-11, OR=1.18), 22q13.1 (rs2235573; P=1.76×10-10, OR=1.15) and eight for non-GBM at 1q32.1 (rs4252707; MDM4, P=3.34×10-9, OR=1.19), 1q44 (rs12076373; AKT3, P=2.63×10-10, OR=1.23), 2q33.3 (rs7572263; near IDH1, P=2.18×10-10, OR=1.20), 3p14.1 (rs11706832; LRIG1, P=7.66×10-9, OR=1.15), 10q24.33 (rs11598018; OBFC1, P=3.39×10-8, OR=1.14), 11q21 (rs7107785; P=3.87×10-10, OR=1.16), 14q12 (rs10131032; P=5.07x10-11, OR=1.33) and 16p13.3 (rs3751667; P=2.61×10-9, OR=1.18). Case-only analyses confirmed the specificity of 11q14.1, 16p13.3 and 22q13.1 associations for GBM and 1q44, 2q33.3, 3p14.1, 11q21 and 14q12 for non-GBM tumors. In the combined meta-analysis, among previously published glioma risk SNPs, those for all glioma at 17p13.1 (TP53), GBM at 5p15.33 (TERT), 7p11.2 (EGFR), 9p21.3 (CDKN2B-AS1) and 20q13.33 (RTEL1) and for non-GBM at 8q24.21 (CCDC26), 11q23.2, 11q23.3 (PHLDB1) and 15q24.2 (ETFA) showed even greater evidence for association. SNPs at 10q25.2 and 12q12.1 for non-GBM tumors retained genome-wide significance (i.e. P<5.0x10-8). Associations at the previously reported loci for GBM at 3q26.2 (near TERC) and 12q23.33 (POLR3B) did not retain statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings substantiate genetic susceptibility to GBM and non-GBM glioma being highly distinct, consistent with their distinctive molecular profiles presumably resulting from different etiological pathways. Functional analyses should lead to further insights into the biological basis of the different glioma histologies. Such information can inform gene discovery initiatives and therefore have a measurable impact on the successful development of new therapeutic agents. Citation Format: Ben Kinnersley, Beatrice S. Melin, Jill S. Barnholtz-Sloan, Margaret R. Wrensch, Christoffer Johansen, Dora Il’yasova, Quinn Ostrom, and members of GICC, Karim Labreche, Jeanette E. Eckel-Passow, Paul A. Decker, Marianne Labussière, Ahmed Idbaih, Khe Hoang-Xuan, Anna-Luisa Di Stefano, Karima Mokhtari, Jean-Yves Delattre, Pilar Galan, Konstantinos Gousias, Johannes Schramm, Minouk J. Schoemaker, Sarah J. Fleming, Stefan Herms, Stefanie Heilmann, Marcus M. Nöthen, Heinz-Erich Wichmann, Stefan Schreiber, Anthony Swerdlow, Mark Lathrop, Matthias Simon, Marc Sanson, Preetha Rajaraman, Stephen Chanock, Martha Linet, Zhaoming Wang, Meredith Yeager, Rose K. Lai, Elizabeth B. Claus, Sara H. Olson, Robert B. Jenkins, Richard S. Houlston, Melissa L. Bondy. Genome-wide association study of glioma reveals specific differences in genetic susceptibility to glioblastoma and non-glioblastoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 1302. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-1302