Brat, Daniel J.

Abstract A working group of cIMPACT-NOW evaluated the literature on IDH-mutant gliomas for opportunities to improve pathology-based risk stratification and grading, especially at the interface of CNS WHO grades 2 and 3, since therapeutic decisions depend on risk assessment for clinical management. The group also evaluated newly described IDH-mutant glioma subgroups and considered multidisciplinary aspects of therapeutic decision-making. PDGFRA amplification was associated with highly aggressive clinical behavior of IDH-mutant astrocytomas, consistent with CNS WHO grade 4. Other genetic alterations associated with intermediate risk and most consistent with CNS WHO grade 3 included PIK3 mutations; EGFR alteration; MYCN amplification; and specific retinoblastoma pathway alterations, including CDK4, CDK6, and CCND2 amplification, RB1 homozygous deletion or mutation, and mutation of CDKN2A. DNA methylation signatures of G-CIMP-low or A_IDH_HG were consistent with CNS WHO grade 3 or 4, depending upon other grading criteria. We suggest a mitotic count of ≥3 per 2.4 mm2 could be considered as a CNS WHO grade 3 criterion. Our review did not uncover features to improve the grading of oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant and 1p/19q-codeleted, although CNS WHO grade 3 tumors with elevated mitotic rates, yet lacking necrosis, microvascular proliferation, CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion, and MRI contrast enhancement, may be associated with extended survival. Implementing evidence-based criteria for risk stratification and grading will improve guidance for clinical decision-making.

Abstract Background: Glioblastoma recurrence is inevitable despite aggressive surgical resection of contrast enhancing (CE) tumor. Unlike the deep molecular characterization of CE glioblastoma, unresected infiltrating tumor, representing minimal residual disease (MRD) has not been well profiled. Increasingly, clinical trials are being conducted in the MRD setting for glioblastoma patients, necessitating understanding of unresected infiltrating tumor for targeted therapeutic development. Methods: Visium HD spatial transcriptomics was used to profile a cohort of newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve glioblastoma patients that underwent supramaximal resection, with both core and infiltrating in situ components. Spatial profiles generated expression signatures of infiltrative and CE tumor. For in silico prediction of therapeutics targeting the MRD, expression signatures of infiltrative and CE tumor were compared with drug perturbation signatures from the NIH L1000 database using the sRGES method to predict reversal of disease expression patterns. IC50 data from human cell lines were aggregated from the Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer or individual study data while blood-brain barrier (BBB) penetrance was predicted using the CNS-MPO approach. Findings: Infiltrative tumor expression profiles were enriched for genes corresponding to neural and oligodendrocyte progenitor like cells. In contrast CE glioblastoma displayed mesenchymal and astrocytic programs, suggesting spatial concentration of glioblastoma states within MRD and CE tumor. For CE glioblastoma, proteasome inhibitors and glucocorticoid receptor agonists were predicted to have the highest antitumor activity. In contrast, histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) were highly ranked for MRD while exhibiting low predicted efficacy in CE tumor. Synergy analysis of drug candidates provided multiple dual treatment options for both the CE and MRD contexts. Conclusions: Cumulatively, these data indicate that the resected tumor does not reflect the MRD state, providing clarity on why targeted therapeutics for glioblastoma have not been particularly successful. Spatial profiling of the MRD demonstrates vulnerability to unique drug targets, which if utilized in the correct setting could confer greater survival benefit. Citation Format: Harrshavasan Congivaram, Shashwat Tripathi, Mateo Gomez, Katy McCortney, Ching Man Wai, Ruochen Du, Thomas K. Sears, Jianzhong Zhang, Daniel J. Brat, Craig M. Horbinski, Mark W. Youngblood, Jared T. Ahrendsen, Adam M. Sonabend, Stephen T. Magill, Matthew C. Tate, Maciej S. Lesniak, Sean Sachdev, Timothy Sita, Priya Kumthekar, Karan Dixit, Robin Buerki, Ditte Primdahl, Mustafa Khasraw, John de Groot, David A. Reardon, Rimas V. Lukas, Roger Stupp, Amy B. Heimberger. In silico screening of therapeutics candidates targeting minimal residual disease in glioblastoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 2496.

Importance Molecular techniques, including next-generation sequencing, genomic copy number profiling, fusion transcript detection, and genomic DNA methylation arrays, are now indispensable tools for the workup of central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Yet there remains a great deal of heterogeneity in using such biomarker testing across institutions and hospital systems. This is in large part because there is a persistent reluctance among third-party payers to cover molecular testing. The objective of this Review is to describe why comprehensive molecular biomarker testing is now required for the accurate diagnosis and grading and prognostication of CNS tumors and, in so doing, to justify more widespread use by clinicians and coverage by third-party payers. Observations The 5th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification system for CNS tumors incorporates specific molecular signatures into the essential diagnostic criteria for most tumor entities. Many CNS tumor types cannot be reliably diagnosed according to current WHO guidelines without molecular testing. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network also incorporates molecular testing into their guidelines for CNS tumors. Both sets of guidelines are maximally effective if they are implemented routinely for all patients with CNS tumors. Moreover, the cost of these tests is less than 5% of the overall average cost of caring for patients with CNS tumors and consistently improves management. This includes more accurate diagnosis and prognostication, clinical trial eligibility, and prediction of response to specific treatments. Each major group of CNS tumors in the WHO classification is evaluated and how molecular diagnostics enhances patient care is described. Conclusions and Relevance Routine advanced multidimensional molecular profiling is now required to provide optimal standard of care for patients with CNS tumors.

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.

AbstractMeningeal solitary fibrous tumors (SFT) are rare and have a high frequency of local recurrence and distant metastasis. In a cohort of 126 patients (57 female, 69 male; mean age at surgery 53.0 years) with pathologically confirmed meningeal SFTs with extended clinical follow‐up (median 9.9 years; range 15 days–43 years), we performed extensive molecular characterization including genome‐wide DNA methylation profiling (n = 80) and targeted TERT promoter mutation testing (n = 98). Associations were examined with NAB2::STAT6 fusion status (n = 101 cases; 51 = ex5‐7::ex16‐17, 26 = ex4::ex2‐3; 12 = ex2‐3::exANY/other and 12 = no fusion) and placed in the context of 2021 Central Nervous System (CNS) WHO grade. NAB2::STAT6 fusion breakpoints (fusion type) were significantly associated with metastasis‐free survival (MFS) (p = 0.03) and, on multivariate analysis, disease‐specific survival (DSS) when adjusting for CNS WHO grade (p = 0.03). DNA methylation profiling revealed three distinct clusters: Cluster 1 (n = 38), Cluster 2 (n = 22), and Cluster 3 (n = 20). Methylation clusters were significantly associated with fusion type (p < 0.001), with Cluster 2 harboring ex4::ex2‐3 fusion in 16 (of 20; 80.0%), nearly all TERT promoter mutations (7 of 8; 87.5%), and predominantly an “SFT” histologic phenotype (15 of 22; 68.2%). Clusters 1 and 3 were less distinct, both dominated by tumors having ex5‐7::ex16‐17 fusion (respectively, 25 of 33; 75.8%, and 12 of 18; 66.7%) and with variable histological phenotypes. Methylation clusters were significantly associated with MFS (p = 0.027), but not overall survival (OS). In summary, NAB2::STAT6 fusion type was significantly associated with MFS and DSS, suggesting that tumors with an ex5::ex16‐17 fusion may have inferior patient outcomes. Methylation clusters were significantly associated with fusion type, TERT promoter mutation status, histologic phenotype, and MFS.

Abstract Meningeal solitary fibrous tumor (SFT) is a rare tumor with high propensity to recur and metastasize, even late in the course of disease. The WHO 2021 classification of CNS tumors divides SFT in 3 grades, based on mitotic index and necrosis. We re-examined our cohort of 126 patients (57 F, 69 M; mean age 53.0 years) with SFT, confirmed by STAT6 nuclear positivity and/or NAB2::STAT6 fusion, with extended follow-up (median 7.6 years; range 4 days-26.6 years). Tumors included 76 grade 1, 36 grade 2 and 14 grade 3 according to 2021 WHO criteria, evaluated at primary resection (n=90), recurrence (n=35), or metastasis (n=1). Fifty-six patients had one or more post-surgical events, the earliest event being local recurrence (n=41) or metastasis (n=15). Forty patients died (29 of disease; 9 of other causes; 2 unknown). Overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS, recurrence and/or metastasis) from time of primary resection (n=90) were not significantly associated with grade; however, risk of metastasis differed significantly (5-year estimates: 4.1%, 15.3%, and 37.8% for grades 1, 2, and 3 SFT, respectively; p=0.005). NAB2::STAT6 fusion status was known in 101 cases (51 = ex5-7-ex16-17, 26 = ex4_ex2-3; 12 = ex2-3_exANY/other and 12 =no fusion). Disease specific 5-year survival in primary tumors with molecular data (n = 75) was 80.0% in patients whose tumors harbored ex5-7_ex16-17 compared to 93.3% in all others combined (p=0.014). Targeted TERT promoter mutation testing was performed in 98 patients, revealing patients with tumors lacking TERT promoter mutation (n = 88) were younger at time of surgery than those harboring a mutation (n=10; p = 0.022), and none with a mutation harboring concurrent ex5-7_ex16-17 fusion (p = 0.0009). In summary, WHO 2021 grade is associated with risk of metastasis. Patients whose tumors harbor ex5-7_ex16-17 fusion have a higher risk of dying from the disease.

Abstract Purpose: The epigenetic mechanisms involved in transcriptional regulation leading to malignant phenotype in gliomas remains poorly understood. Topoisomerase IIB (TOP2B), an enzyme that decoils and releases torsional forces in DNA, is overexpressed in a subset of gliomas. Therefore, we investigated its role in epigenetic regulation in these tumors. Experimental Design: To investigate the role of TOP2B in epigenetic regulation in gliomas, we performed paired chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing for TOP2B and RNA-sequencing analysis of glioma cell lines with and without TOP2B inhibition and in human glioma specimens. These experiments were complemented with assay for transposase-accessible chromatin using sequencing, gene silencing, and mouse xenograft experiments to investigate the function of TOP2B and its role in glioma phenotypes. Results: We discovered that TOP2B modulates transcription of multiple oncogenes in human gliomas. TOP2B regulated transcription only at sites where it was enzymatically active, but not at all native binding sites. In particular, TOP2B activity localized in enhancers, promoters, and introns of PDGFRA and MYC, facilitating their expression. TOP2B levels and genomic localization was associated with PDGFRA and MYC expression across glioma specimens, which was not seen in nontumoral human brain tissue. In vivo, TOP2B knockdown of human glioma intracranial implants prolonged survival and downregulated PDGFRA. Conclusions: Our results indicate that TOP2B activity exerts a pleiotropic role in transcriptional regulation of oncogenes in a subset of gliomas promoting a proliferative phenotype.

Abstract Context. —The World Health Organization (WHO) recently published its 4th edition of the classification of tumors of the central nervous system, incorporating a substantial number of important changes to the previous version (WHO 2000). The new WHO classification introduces 7 changes in the grading of central nervous system neoplasms, ranging in significance from minor to major, in categories of anaplastic oligoastrocytomas, meningiomas, choroid plexus tumors, pineal parenchymal tumors, ganglioglioma, cerebellar liponeurocytoma, and hemangiopericytomas. The 4th edition also introduces 10 newly codified entities, variants, and patterns, as well as 1 new genetic syndrome. A number of established brain tumors are reorganized, including medulloblastomas and primitive neuroectodermal tumors, in an attempt to more closely align classification with current understanding of central nervous system neoplasia. Objective. —To summarize and discuss the most significant updates in the 4th edition for the practicing surgical pathologist, including (1) changes in grading among established entities; (2) newly codified tumor entities, variants, patterns, and syndromes; and (3) changes in the classification of existing brain tumors. Data Sources. —The primary source for this review is the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Central Nervous System, 4th edition. Other important sources include the 3rd edition of this book and the primary literature that supported changes in the 4th edition. Conclusions. —The new edition of the WHO blue book reflects advancements in the understanding of brain tumors in terms of classification, grading, and new entities. The changes introduced are substantial and will have an impact on the practice of general surgical pathologists and neuropathologists.