Mamatjan, Yasin

Abstract Background Glioblastoma (GB) exhibits marked tumor microenvironmental heterogeneity, contributing to both therapy resistance and poor survival outcomes. Intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM1) is an inflammation-associated adhesion molecule implicated in immune-stromal interactions, but its clinical and biological significance in GB remains incompletely defined. Methods We performed ICAM1 immunohistochemistry, bulk RNA sequencing, DNA methylation analysis, single-nucleus RNA sequencing, and preoperative MRI-derived morphologic feature analysis across multi-institutional cohorts of treatment-naïve IDH-wildtype GB. Results High ICAM1 expression at both transcript and protein levels is associated with shorter overall survival, particularly within the mesenchymal transcriptional subtype. ICAM1 expression is inversely associated with promoter methylation. Single-nucleus RNA-sequencing analysis shows that ICAM1-high tumors are enriched for mesenchymal, hypoxia, stress-associated, and immunosuppressive myeloid programs, suggesting that ICAM1 reflects a multicompartment inflammatory tumor ecosystem. ICAM1 expression, tumor surface irregularity, and patient age are independently prognostic and minimally correlated, capturing complementary clinical, imaging, and molecular features of GB biology. When combined, our Clinical-Imaging-Molecular (CIM) framework refines outcome prediction across independent GB cohorts using routinely available clinical data, conventional imaging, and standard immunohistochemistry. Conclusions ICAM1 characterizes an immune-remodeled, stress-adapted GB ecosystem associated with poor clinical outcomes. Integrating patient age, surface irregularity, and ICAM1 expression yields a scalable and clinically accessible prognostic framework for GB, supporting tailored outcome prediction, particularly in low- and middle-resource settings without routine access to advanced molecular profiling.

Abstract Background DNA methylation profiling can be used to robustly predict postsurgical outcomes and response to radiotherapy (RT) for meningioma patients. To allow for seamless integration of these complementary models into clinical practice, a practical framework is needed. Methods We leveraged a cohort of nearly 2000 surgically-treated meningiomas with DNA methylation profiling and clinical outcomes data. Existing methylation-based prediction models were dichotomized to yield four risk groups: low and high recurrent risk, each with RT sensitive and resistant subgroups. Risk groups were correlated with progression-free survival in the context of existing biomarkers including extent of resection and WHO grade. Results We first demonstrated that all risk groups benefit from gross total resection. All “high-risk, RT sensitive” tumors (n = 306, 15.7%) also benefited from adjuvant RT: after GTR, median PFS increased from 4.68 (4.13-9.48) years to not reached (P = .003); after subtotal resection (STR), from 2.12 (1.59-3.02) to 4.09 (3.41-not reached) years (P = .004). “Low-risk, RT sensitive cases” (n = 1207, 61.8%) also benefited from RT after STR (median PFS 7.39 (6.66-12.8) vs. 16.53 (10.35-not reached) years, P = .03), suggesting that RT be considered in these patients. Neither “low-risk RT resistant” (n = 84, 4.3%) nor “high-risk RT resistant” (n = 356, 18.2%) cases benefited from RT, and the latter group was associated with universally poor outcomes. Conclusions We identify methylation-defined risk groups of meningioma for which additional benefit is gained from adjuvant RT, leading to a clinical decision-making framework for straightforward integration of molecular models into clinical practice.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Brain metastases (BM) are the most common intracranial tumor, with a poor prognosis of 10-16 months, and lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) is the most common source. Currently, we cannot reliably predict which patients will develop BMs clinically, so most are detected after they develop and growing to cause deficits. Here, we use tumor DNA methylomes to predict which patients are likely to develop BM through the course of disease and we use both cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma methylomes for BM liquid biopsy, enabling their early detection and treatment. METHODS DNA methylomes were acquired from 419 tumor and plasma samples from 363 LUAD and BM patients. We built DNA methylation-based models that predict BM development and that also identify BMs non-invasively from CSF and plasma in discovery data subsets. A nomogram was built that predicts BM risk using methylation scores and clinical stage together. Models were evaluated in independent validation sets. RESULTS Our model predicting BM development was accurate (Univariable Cox: HR=5.7, 95% CI=1.9-17.2), p=0.0023), independent of clinical factors (Multivariable Cox: HR=8.9, 95% CI=2.0-40.5, p=0.0046), and more predictive than cancer staging used currently clinically (AUC=0.81 versus 0.65). Our combinatorial nomogram using methylation and staging data together showed enhanced BM prediction (Univariable Cox: HR=17.2, 95% CI=4.1-71.3, p<0.0001; AUROC=0.82). Our models identifying BM through biofluid methylomes accurately distinguished BM from differential diagnoses of gliomas and lymphomas in plasma (AUROC=0.80, 95% CI=0.68-0.93) and with greater accuracy in CSF (AUROC=0.93, 95% CI=0.71-1.0). CONCLUSION Overall, we show the first approaches for robust molecular prediction of BM development and for reliable liquid biopsy of BM. This work is expected to transform cancer management by identifying high-risk lung cancer patients after initial treatment for inclusion in screening protocols using neuroimaging and liquid biopsy, to identify BM development early with less advanced disease and more optimal therapeutic outcomes.

Abstract Background Adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients remain underrepresented in neuro-oncology research. Despite being the second most common primary brain tumor in this population, meningiomas have not been studied using age-specific molecular analyses. DNA methylation-based classification and prognostic tools have transformed meningioma care. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of these tools across age groups. Methods We analyzed 1,568 meningiomas with DNA methylation and clinical data, including 18 pediatric patients (<15 years), 195 AYA patients (15-39 years), and 1,355 adult patients (>39 years). Pediatric and AYA (P/AYA) tumors were combined and compared with adult tumors. The performance of established molecular classifiers and recurrence predictors, as well as differences in chromosomal copy number alterations were compared across age groups. Results While histologic grading was comparable between cohorts, P/AYA tumors displayed significantly fewer aggressive molecular groups and lower frequencies of chromosomal arm losses, including 1p, 6q, and 14q. The adult-trained recurrence predictor failed in the P/AYA population (AUC 0.57), despite similar score distributions. Retraining the model on an age-specific cohort using an identical analytic framework improved performance (AUC 0.79) and enabled effective stratification of progression-free survival (P = 0.00054). Importantly, 1p loss retained prognostic significance within the P/AYA group, supporting its clinical utility. Conclusions Molecular tools developed in adult-dominant cohorts do not generalize to younger patients due to both biological divergence and exclusion from model development. These findings underscore the need for age-specific molecular frameworks and highlight the imperative of including P/AYA populations in precision neuro-oncology research to ensure lifespan-equitable care.

2030 Background: Brain metastases (BM) are common and arise in 30% of lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) patients. Patients with LUAD that develop BM have significantly poorer outcomes, with a 10-16 month median overall survival. Unfortunately, current clinical practice for BM prediction is limited and so BM are typically detected after they develop and grow to cause neurological symptoms. Once BM are detected, currently neurosurgical tumor biopsies are performed to enable BM diagnosis via neuropathological evaluation. The aims of this study were to develop DNA methylation-based models that predict LUAD BM and non-invasively detect BM in blood to enable early diagnosis and treatment. Methods: DNA methylomes were acquired from 402 tumor tissue and plasma samples in a cohort of 346 LUAD and BM patients. Machine learning models were built using DNA methylation signatures that stratify BM risk in tissue and detect BM in plasma. Models were evaluated in independent validation datasets. A predictive nomogram was developed using the BM prediction model together with clinical factors to provide composite patient-specific scores reflecting BM risk. Results: The methylation-based BM predictor accurately stratified BM risk in a univariable Cox model using validation set data (HR = 5.65, 95%CI 1.85–17.2, p = 0.0023). Model utility was independent of the predictive value of clinical factors in a multivariable Cox model using validation set data (Table 1: HR = 8.92, 95%CI 1.97–40.5, p = 0.0046). The 5-year model accuracy was 0.81 and significantly higher than a similarly built cancer stage-based model (0.65), demonstrating utility over current practice. The combinatorial clinical-methylomic predictive nomogram had enhanced utility with an accuracy of 0.82 univariable Cox HR of 17.2 (95%CI 4.13–71.3, p < 0.0001), demonstrating comprehensive patient-specificity. The plasma-based model accurately classified BM from gliomas and lymphomas (AUROC=0.80), as typical clinical differential diagnoses, in validation set data. The models were validated further in additional external data. Conclusions: DNA methylation-based modeling of BM can accurately predict LUAD patients at risk for BM development and can non-invasively detect BM that develop. Future treatment approaches may tailor initial LUAD treatment and ongoing cancer surveillance to a patient’s BM risk, allowing for the potential to prevent and treat BM early. DNA methylation-based BM prediction is independent of clinical factors in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. Variable HR 95% CI p Methylome risk score 8.92 1.97–40.5 0.005 Age Years 0.96 0.92–1.02 0.177 Smoking Pack-years 0.99 0.95–1.03 0.496 EGFR Mutant vs wildtype 0.92 0.25–3.34 0.895 T T2 vs T1 1.58 0.41–6.04 0.505 T3−4 vs T1 1.49 0.28–7.98 0.642 N N1 vs N0 1.05 0.31–3.58 0.943 N2−3 vs N0 1.00 0.27–3.69 0.995 M M1 vs M0 145 12.2–1730 <0.001