von Deimling, Andreas

Abstract Background Astroblastomas are rare brain tumors predominantly affecting children and young adults, for which molecular subtypes and clinical management remain undefined. Methods We analyzed tumor samples, molecular profiles, and clinical data from 200 patients, classified as “Astroblastoma, MN1-altered” under WHO criteria, using DNA methylation profiling, DNA/RNA profiling/sequencing, and survival analyses. Results DNA methylation analyses identified 3 groups: Group A (n = 143, characterized by MN1::BEND2 fusions, predominantly supratentorial location, with striking female predominance and favorable survival); Group B (n = 37, epigenetically and transcriptionally closely related to Group A, but characterized by EWSR1::BEND2 fusions, with spinal and infratentorial locations and poor prognosis); and Group C (n = 20, epigenetically and transcriptionally distinct, characterized by MN1::CXXC5 fusions, exclusively supratentorially located, with favorable survival). Progression-free and overall survival were significantly shorter in Group B (5-year PFS 14%; 10-year OS 54%) compared to A (5-year PFS 47%; 10-year OS 89%) and C (5-year PFS 75%; 10-year OS 89%). Radiotherapy improved PFS in Group B (hazard ratio 0.25), while no clear benefit was identified for Groups A and C. Conclusions Astroblastoma, MN1-altered, comprises 3 molecularly and clinically distinct groups, characterized by different fusion genes, including those without MN1. These new insights, including the identification of potential predictive biomarkers like 14q/16q loss, provide a framework for the development of risk-stratified therapeutic approaches. Importantly, we identified a molecularly defined high-risk group that benefits from radiation therapy. Our findings redefine Astroblastoma as a molecularly diverse tumor type, propose a refined classification, support the development of risk-adapted therapeutic strategies and provide a rational standard of care.

Abstract Background Methylation class pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma (mcPXA) comprises tumors with the DNA methylation signature of classical PXA but with a wider histologic spectrum, including overlap with glioblastoma (GBM). Methods To clarify the histologic and molecular scope of mcPXA and characterize its clinical behavior, a cohort of 469 tumor samples from 458 patients matching to mcPXA by the DKFZ classifier (v12.6 score ≥0.85) was interrogated. Results Patient median age was 23 years (range 1-73 years) with a female predominance (259 female/199 male). CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion was observed in 406 of 469 (87%) samples. In samples tested for BRAF p.V600E mutations (n = 279), 240 (86%) harbored the mutation. A chr7+/chr10− pattern was observed in 103 of 469 (22%) samples. Among samples tested for TERT promoter mutations (n = 143), 32 (22%) harbored the mutation. Progression-free and overall survival of patients with mcPXA were comparable to patients with methylation class IDH-mutant astrocytoma, low grade, but a GBM-like subset (ie, cases with a pre-methylation working diagnosis of GBM) showed shorter survival. Histologic features of high grade, including palisading necrosis and microvascular proliferation, were prognostic in mcPXA. Compared to patients with BRAF p.V600E-altered GBM, patients with mcPXA were younger and had a lower frequency of TERT promoter mutations. Conclusion Tumors in mcPXA share molecular characteristics with histologically defined PXA, and high-grade histologic features can help predict their clinical behavior. The use of an epigenetic classification of PXA reveals that this group of tumors is more common than previously appreciated and warrants in-depth study to identify efficacious therapeutic options.

Abstract Genome-wide DNA methylation signatures correlate with and distinguish central nervous system (CNS) tumor types. Since the publication of the initial CNS tumor DNA methylation classifier in 2018, this platform has been increasingly used as a diagnostic tool for CNS tumors, with multiple studies showing the value and utility of DNA methylation-based classification of CNS tumors. A Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy (cIMPACT-NOW) Working Group was therefore convened to describe the current state of the field and to provide advice based on lessons learned to date. Here, we provide recommendations for the use of DNA methylation-based classification in CNS tumor diagnostics, emphasizing the attributes and limitations of the modality. We emphasize that the methylation classifier is one diagnostic tool to be used alongside previously established diagnostic tools in a fully integrated fashion. In addition, we provide examples of the inclusion of DNA methylation data within the layered diagnostic reporting format endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting. We emphasize the need for backward compatibility of future platforms to enable accumulated data to be compatible with new versions of the array. Finally, we outline the specific connections between methylation classes and CNS WHO tumor types to aid in the interpretation of classifier results. It is hoped that this update will assist the neuro-oncology community in the interpretation of DNA methylation classifier results to facilitate the accurate diagnosis of CNS tumors and thereby help guide patient management.

Abstract Meningiomas are the most frequent primary intracranial tumors. Hence, they constitute a major share of diagnostic specimens in neuropathology practice. The 2021 WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors (“CNS5”) has introduced the first molecular grading parameters for meningioma with oncogenic variants in the TERT promoter and homozygous deletion of CDKN2A/B as markers for CNS WHO grade 3. However, after the publication of the new classification volume, clarifications were requested, not only on novel but also on long-standing questions in meningioma grading that were beyond the scope of the WHO “blue book.” In addition, more recent research into possible new molecular grading parameters could not yet be implemented in the 2021 classification but constitutes a compelling body of literature. Hence, the consortium to inform molecular and practical approaches to CNS tumor taxonomy-not official WHO (cIMPACT-NOW) Steering Committee convened a working group to provide such clarification and assess the evidence of possible novel molecular criteria. As a result, this cIMPACT-NOW update provides guidance for more standardized morphological evaluation and interpretation, most prominently pertaining to brain invasion, identifies scenarios in which advanced molecular testing is recommended, proposes to assign CNS WHO grade 2 for cases with CNS WHO grade 1 morphology but chromosomal arm 1p deletion in combination with 22q deletion and/or NF2 oncogenic variants, and discusses areas in which the current evidence is not yet sufficient to result in new recommendations.

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 cIMPACT‐NOW (the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy) was established to evaluate and make practical recommendations on recent advances in the field of CNS tumor classification, particularly in light of the rapid progress in molecular insights into these neoplasms. For Round 2 of its deliberations, cIMPACT‐NOW Working Committee 3 was reconstituted and convened in Utrecht, The Netherlands, for a meeting designed to review putative new CNS tumor types in advance of any future World Health Organization meeting on CNS tumor classification. In preparatory activities for the meeting and at the actual meeting, a list of possible entities was assembled and each type and subtype debated. Working Committee 3 recommended that a substantial number of newly recognized types and subtypes should be considered for inclusion in future CNS tumor classifications. In addition, the group endorsed a number of principles—relating to classification categories, approaches to classification, nomenclature, and grading—that the group hopes will also inform the future classification of CNS neoplasms.