Article | Published:

A novel analytical model of MGMT methylation pyrosequencing offers improved predictive performance in patients with gliomas

Abstract

The methylation status of the promoter of MGMT gene is a crucial factor influencing clinical decision-making in patients with gliomas. MGMT pyrosequencing results are often dichotomized by a cut-off value based on an average of several tested CpGs. However, this method frequently results in a “gray zone”, representing a dilemma for physicians. We therefore propose a novel analytical model for MGMT methylation pyrosequencing. MGMT CpG heterogeneity was investigated in 213 glioma patients in two tested cohorts: cohort A in which CpGs 75–82 were tested and cohort B in which CpGs 72–78 were tested. The predictive performances of the novel and traditional averaging models were compared in 135 patients who received temozolomide using receiver operating characteristic curves and Kaplan–Meier curves, and in patients stratified according to isocitrate dehydrogenase gene mutation status. The results were validated in an independent cohort of 65 consecutive patients with high-grade gliomas from the Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas database. Heterogeneity of MGMT promoter CpG methylation level was observed in most gliomas. The optimal cut-off value for each individual CpG varied from 4–16%. The current analysis defined MGMT promoter methylation as occurring when at least three CpGs exceeded their respective cut-off values. This novel analysis could accurately predict the prognosis of patients in the methylation “gray zone” according to the standard averaging method, and improved the area under the curves from 0.67, 0.76, and 0.67 to 0.70, 0.84, and 0.72 in cohorts A, B, and the validation cohort, respectively, demonstrating superiority of this analytical method in all three cohorts. Furthermore, the advantages of the novel analysis were retained regardless of WHO grade and isocitrate dehydrogenase gene mutation status. In conclusion, this novel analytical model offers an improved clinical predictive performance for MGMT pyrosequencing results and is suitable for clinical use in patients with gliomas.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Hegi ME, Diserens AC, Godard S, et al. Clinical trial substantiates the predictive value of O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation in glioblastoma patients treated with temozolomide. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:1871–4.

  2. 2.

    Hegi ME, Diserens AC, Gorlia T, et al. MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:997–1003.

  3. 3.

    Barault L, Amatu A, Bleeker FE, et al. Digital PCR quantification of MGMT methylation refines prediction of clinical benefit from alkylating agents in glioblastoma and metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1994–9.

  4. 4.

    Lechapt-Zalcman E, Levallet G, Dugue AE, et al. O(6) -methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation and low MGMT-encoded protein expression as prognostic markers in glioblastoma patients treated with biodegradable carmustine wafer implants after initial surgery followed by radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide. Cancer. 2012;118:4545–54.

  5. 5.

    Boots-Sprenger SH, Sijben A, Rijntjes J, et al. Significance of complete 1p/19q co-deletion, IDH1 mutation and MGMT promoter methylation in gliomas: use with caution. Mod Pathol. 2013;26:922–9.

  6. 6.

    Esteller M, Garcia-Foncillas J, Andion E, et al. Inactivation of the DNA-repair gene MGMT and the clinical response of gliomas to alkylating agents. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1350–4.

  7. 7.

    Eads CA, Danenberg KD, Kawakami K, et al. MethyLight: a high-throughput assay to measure DNA methylation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28:E32.

  8. 8.

    Gerson SL. MGMT: its role in cancer aetiology and cancer therapeutics. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:296–307.

  9. 9.

    Quillien V, Lavenu A, Karayan-Tapon L, et al. Comparative assessment of 5 methods (methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction, MethyLight, pyrosequencing, methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting, and immunohistochemistry) to analyze O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltranferase in a series of 100 glioblastoma patients. Cancer. 2012;118:4201–11.

  10. 10.

    Komine C, Watanabe T, Katayama Y, et al. Promoter hypermethylation of the DNA repair gene O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase is an independent predictor of shortened progression free survival in patients with low-grade diffuse astrocytomas. Brain Pathol. 2003;13:176–84.

  11. 11.

    Bienkowski M, Berghoff AS, Marosi C, et al. Clinical Neuropathology practice guide 5-2015: MGMT methylation pyrosequencing in glioblastoma: unresolved issues and open questions. Clin Neuropathol. 2015;34:250–7.

  12. 12.

    Yuan G, Niu L, Zhang Y, et al. Defining optimal cutoff value of MGMT promoter methylation by ROC analysis for clinical setting in glioblastoma patients. J Neurooncol. 2017;133:193–201.

  13. 13.

    Cheng W, Ren X, Cai J, et al. A five-miRNA signature with prognostic and predictive value for MGMT promoter-methylated glioblastoma patients. Oncotarget. 2015;6:29285–95.

  14. 14.

    Rapkins RW, Wang F, Nguyen HN, et al. The MGMT promoter SNP rs16906252 is a risk factor for MGMT methylation in glioblastoma and is predictive of response to temozolomide. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17:1589–98.

  15. 15.

    Wick W, Weller M, van den Bent M, et al. MGMT testing--the challenges for biomarker-based glioma treatment. Nat Rev Neurol. 2014;10:372–85.

  16. 16.

    Quillien V, Lavenu A, Sanson M, et al. Outcome-based determination of optimal pyrosequencing assay for MGMT methylation detection in glioblastoma patients. J Neurooncol. 2014;116:487–96.

  17. 17.

    Zhao H, Wang S, Song C, Zha Y, Li L. The prognostic value of MGMT promoter status by pyrosequencing assay for glioblastoma patients’ survival: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14:261.

  18. 18.

    Jiang T, Mao Y, Ma W, et al. CGCG clinical practice guidelines for the management of adult diffuse gliomas. Cancer Lett. 2016;375:263–73.

  19. 19.

    Malley DS, Hamoudi RA, Kocialkowski S, et al. A distinct region of the MGMT CpG island critical for transcriptional regulation is preferentially methylated in glioblastoma cells and xenografts. Acta Neuropathol. 2011;121:651–61.

  20. 20.

    Mur P, Rodriguez de Lope A, Diaz-Crespo FJ, et al. Impact on prognosis of the regional distribution of MGMT methylation with respect to the CpG island methylator phenotype and age in glioma patients. J Neurooncol. 2015;122:441–50.

  21. 21.

    Dunn J, Baborie A, Alam F, et al. Extent of MGMT promoter methylation correlates with outcome in glioblastomas given temozolomide and radiotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2009;101:124–31.

  22. 22.

    Brigliadori G, Foca F, Dall’Agata M, et al. Defining the cutoff value of MGMT gene promoter methylation and its predictive capacity in glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2016;128:333–9.

  23. 23.

    Weller M, Stupp R, Reifenberger G, et al. MGMT promoter methylation in malignant gliomas: ready for personalized medicine? Nat Rev Neurol. 2010;6:39–51.

  24. 24.

    Zhang W, Zhang J, Hoadley K, et al. miR-181d: a predictive glioblastoma biomarker that downregulates MGMT expression. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14:712–9.

  25. 25.

    Cheng W, Ren X, Zhang C, et al. Bioinformatic profiling identifies an immune-related risk signature for glioblastoma. Neurology. 2016;86:2226–34.

  26. 26.

    Chai R, Zhang K, Wang K, et al. A novel gene signature based on five glioblastoma stem-like cell relevant genes predicts the survival of primary glioblastoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018;144:439–47.

  27. 27.

    Wick W, Meisner C, Hentschel B, et al. Prognostic or predictive value of MGMT promoter methylation in gliomas depends on IDH1 mutation. Neurology. 2013;81:1515–22.

  28. 28.

    Mulholland S, Pearson DM, Hamoudi RA, et al. MGMT CpG island is invariably methylated in adult astrocytic and oligodendroglial tumors with IDH1 or IDH2 mutations. Int J Cancer. 2012;131:1104–13.

  29. 29.

    Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Cavenee WK. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Central Nervous System. WHO Classification of Tumours, Revised 4th edition. Volume 1. France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2016.

  30. 30.

    Reifenberger G, Hentschel B, Felsberg J, et al. Predictive impact of MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma of the elderly. Int J Cancer. 2012;131:1342–50.

  31. 31.

    Wiewrodt D, Nagel G, Dreimuller N, et al. MGMT in primary and recurrent human glioblastomas after radiation and chemotherapy and comparison with p53 status and clinical outcome. Int J Cancer. 2008;122:1391–9.

  32. 32.

    Herman JG, Graff JR, Myohanen S, Nelkin BD, Baylin SB. Methylation-specific PCR: a novel PCR assay for methylation status of CpG islands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93:9821–6.

  33. 33.

    Vlassenbroeck I, Califice S, Diserens AC, et al. Validation of real-time methylation-specific PCR to determine O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase gene promoter methylation in glioma. J Mol Diagn. 2008;10:332–7.

  34. 34.

    Wojdacz TK, Dobrovic A. Methylation-sensitive high resolution melting (MS-HRM): a new approach for sensitive and high-throughput assessment of methylation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:e41.

  35. 35.

    Jeuken JW, Cornelissen SJ, Vriezen M, et al. MS-MLPA: an attractive alternative laboratory assay for robust, reliable, and semiquantitative detection of MGMT promoter hypermethylation in gliomas. Lab Invest. 2007;87:1055–65.

  36. 36.

    Bady P, Sciuscio D, Diserens AC, et al. MGMT methylation analysis of glioblastoma on the Infinium methylation BeadChip identifies two distinct CpG regions associated with gene silencing and outcome, yielding a prediction model for comparisons across datasets, tumor grades, and CIMP-status. Acta Neuropathol. 2012;124:547–60.

  37. 37.

    Bady P, Delorenzi M, Hegi ME. Sensitivity analysis of the MGMT-STP27 model and impact of genetic and epigenetic context to predict the MGMT methylation status in gliomas and other tumors. J Mol Diagn. 2016;18:350–61.

  38. 38.

    Wemmert S, Ketter R, Rahnenfuhrer J, et al. Patients with high-grade gliomas harboring deletions of chromosomes 9p and 10q benefit from temozolomide treatment. Neoplasia. 2005;7:883–93.

  39. 39.

    Herrlinger U, Rieger J, Koch D, et al. Phase II trial of lomustine plus temozolomide chemotherapy in addition to radiotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: UKT-03. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4412–7.

  40. 40.

    Xia D, Reardon DA, Bruce JL, Lindeman NI. The clinical implications of inconsistently methylated results from glioblastoma MGMT testing by replicate methylation-specific PCR. J Mol Diagn. 2016;18:864–71.

  41. 41.

    Christians A, Hartmann C, Benner A, et al. Prognostic value of three different methods of MGMT promoter methylation analysis in a prospective trial on newly diagnosed glioblastoma. PLoS One. 2012;7:e33449.

  42. 42.

    Chai RC, Zhang KN, Liu YQ, et al. Combinations of four or more CpGs methylation present equivalent predictive value for MGMT expression and temozolomide therapeutic prognosis in gliomas. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/cns.13040.

  43. 43.

    Ramalho-Carvalho J, Pires M, Lisboa S, et al. Altered expression of MGMT in high-grade gliomas results from the combined effect of epigenetic and genetic aberrations. PLoS One. 2013;8:e58206.

  44. 44.

    Felsberg J, Rapp M, Loeser S, et al. Prognostic significance of molecular markers and extent of resection in primary glioblastoma patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:6683–93.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Susan Furness, PhD, from Liwen Bianji, Edanz Group China (www.liwenbianji.cn/ac), for editing the English text of a draft of this manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81773208, 81402052); the Beijing Nova Program (Z16110004916082); the National Key Research and Development Plan (2016YFC0902500); the Beijing Scienceand Technology Plan (Z131100006113018, Z141100000214009); and the Capital Medical Development Research Fund (2016-1-1072).

Author information

Correspondence to Yong-Zhi Wang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Beijing Tiantan Hospital institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from each patient involved in our research.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary materials

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Further reading

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5