Peer-reviewed article
EPEN-02. OPTIMISING BIOMARKERS FOR ACCURATE EPENDYMOMA DIAGNOSIS, PROGNOSTICATION AND STRATIFICATION WITHIN INTERNATIONAL CLINICAL TRIALS: A BIOMECA STUDY
·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view ·Key points
Limitations
Abstract
Abstract Accurate identification of brain tumour molecular subgroups is increasingly important. We aimed to establish the most accurate and reproducible ependymoma subgroup biomarker detection techniques, across 147 cases from International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP) Ependymoma II trial participants, enrolled in the pan-European “Biomarkers of Ependymoma in Children and Adolescents (BIOMECA)” study. Across six European BIOMECA laboratories we evaluated epigenetic profiling (DNA methylation array); immunohistochemistry (IHC) for nuclear p65-RELA, H3K27me3, and Tenascin-C; copy number analysis via FISH and MLPA (1q, CDKN2A), and MIP and DNA methylation array (genome-wide copy number evaluation); analysis of ZFTA- and YAP1-fusions by RT-PCR and sequencing, Nanostring and break-apart FISH. DNA Methylation profiling classified 65.3% (n=96/147) of cases as EPN-PFA and 15% (n=22/147) as ST-ZFTA fusion-positive. Immunohistochemical loss of H3K27me3 was a reproducible and accurate surrogate marker for EPN-PFA (sensitivity 99-100% across three centres). IHC for p65-RELA, FISH, and RNA-based analyses effectively identified ZFTA- and YAP1- fused supratentorial ependymomas. Detection of 1q gain using FISH exhibited only 57% inter-centre concordance and low sensitivity and specificity whilst MIP, MLPA and DNA methylation-based approaches demonstrated greater accuracy. We confirm, in a prospective trial cohort, that H3K27me3 IHC is a robust EPN-PFA biomarker. Tenascin-C should be abandoned as a PFA marker. DNA methylation and MIP arrays are effective tools for copy number analysis of 1q gain, 6q and CDKN2A loss whilst FISH is inadequate. Fusion detection was successful, but rare novel fusions need more extensive technologies. We propose CORE and CORE Plus test sets to guide future diagnostic approaches. CORE tests represent those that can currently be used to stratify and inform clinical trials and diagnosis and include IHC and DNA methylation profiling. CORE Plus tests have additional advantages for challenging cases and for use in the research setting and comprise of MIP and RNA-NGS sequencing.