» Articles » PMID: 39115615

Comparative Analysis of Molecular and Histological Glioblastomas: Insights into Prognostic Variance

Overview
Journal J Neurooncol
Publisher Springer
Date 2024 Aug 8
PMID 39115615
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Whether molecular glioblastomas (GBMs) identify with a similar dismal prognosis as a "classical" histological GBM is controversial. This study aimed to compare the clinical, molecular, imaging, surgical factors, and prognosis between molecular GBMs and histological GBMs.

Methods: Retrospective chart and imaging review was performed in 983 IDH-wildtype GBM patients (52 molecular GBMs and 931 histological GBMs) from a single institution between 2005 and 2023. Propensity score-matched analysis was additionally performed to adjust for differences in baseline variables between molecular GBMs and histological GBMs.

Results: Molecular GBM patients were substantially younger (58.1 vs. 62.4, P = 0.014) with higher rate of TERTp mutation (84.6% vs. 50.3%, P < 0.001) compared with histological GBM patients. Imaging showed higher incidence of gliomatosis cerebri pattern (32.7% vs. 9.2%, P < 0.001) in molecular GBM compared with histological GBM, which resulted in lesser extent of resection (P < 0.001) in these patients. The survival was significantly better in molecular GBM compared to histological GBM (median OS 30.2 vs. 18.4 months, P = 0.001). The superior outcome was confirmed in propensity score analyses by matching histological GBM to molecular GBM (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: There are distinct clinical, molecular, and imaging differences between molecular GBMs and histological GBMs. Our results suggest that molecular GBMs have a more favorable prognosis than histological GBMs.

Citing Articles

A Radiologist's Guide to IDH-Wildtype Glioblastoma for Efficient Communication With Clinicians: Part I-Essential Information on Preoperative and Immediate Postoperative Imaging.

Vollmuth P, Karschnia P, Sahm F, Park Y, Ahn S, Jain R Korean J Radiol. 2025; 26(3):246-268.

PMID: 39999966 PMC: 11865903. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2024.0982.

References
1.
Louis D, Perry A, Wesseling P, Brat D, Cree I, Figarella-Branger D . The 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Neuro Oncol. 2021; 23(8):1231-1251. PMC: 8328013. DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noab106. View

2.
Eckel-Passow J, Lachance D, Molinaro A, Walsh K, Decker P, Sicotte H . Glioma Groups Based on 1p/19q, IDH, and TERT Promoter Mutations in Tumors. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(26):2499-508. PMC: 4489704. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1407279. View

3.
Weller M, Weber R, Willscher E, Riehmer V, Hentschel B, Kreuz M . Molecular classification of diffuse cerebral WHO grade II/III gliomas using genome- and transcriptome-wide profiling improves stratification of prognostically distinct patient groups. Acta Neuropathol. 2015; 129(5):679-93. DOI: 10.1007/s00401-015-1409-0. View

4.
Aoki K, Nakamura H, Suzuki H, Matsuo K, Kataoka K, Shimamura T . Prognostic relevance of genetic alterations in diffuse lower-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2017; 20(1):66-77. PMC: 5761527. DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nox132. View

5.
Wijnenga M, Dubbink H, French P, Synhaeve N, Dinjens W, Atmodimedjo P . Molecular and clinical heterogeneity of adult diffuse low-grade IDH wild-type gliomas: assessment of TERT promoter mutation and chromosome 7 and 10 copy number status allows superior prognostic stratification. Acta Neuropathol. 2017; 134(6):957-959. DOI: 10.1007/s00401-017-1781-z. View