Advancements in Molecular Biomarkers as Prognostic Predictors for Patients with Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review
Objectives: Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly aggressive tumor with a median survival of 14-15 months with specific genetic expression.With advances in technology, molecular biomarkers are currently used as predictors to determine the prognosis of patients with GBM.
Methods: We collected literature through PubMed, SCOPUS, and Google scholar, from to 2014-2024. The study designs that met the inclusion criteria were cohort, cross-sectional, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The studies will be graded according to the risk of bias they represent using Quality of Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) Tool Ratings.
Results: Twelve articles with six different biomarkers (MGMT, IDH, PTEN, EGFR, EGFRvIII, and TP53) met the inclusion criteria and were considered eligible for this systematic review. Prognosis was measured using OS, and the data were compared using univariate analysis of each biomolecule for OS. Methylation of MGMT and IDH mutations was a good prognostic predictor, and amplification of EGFR,EGFRvIII,PTEN, and TP53 mutations was not statistically significant for OS.
Conclusion: Several biomarkers can be used as predictors alone or in combination with one another. Advances in technology and biomolecular science are expected to help predict the prognosis and provide new insights into the management of GBM.
1. Louis DN, Perry A, WesselingP, Brat DJ, Cree IA, Figarella-Brang- er D, et al. The 2021 WHO classification of tumors of the central nervous system: A summary. Neuro Oncol 2021;23:1231–51.
2. Thakkar JP, DolecekTA, Horbinski C, Ostrom QT, Lightner DD, Barnholtz-Sloan JS, et al. Epidemiologic and molecular prog- nostic review of glioblastoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23(10):1985–96
3. Clarke CR. Kumar and Clark clinical medicine. 6th ed. Edin- burgh: Elsevier Saunders; 2005. p. 1244–5.
4. PRISMA. Flow diagram. 2009.Available at: http://prisma-state- ment.org/prismastatement/flowdiagram.aspx. Accessed Nov 29, 2024.
5. Grooten WJA, Tseli E, Äng BO, Boersma K, Stålnacke BM, Ger- dle B, et al. Elaborating on the assessment of the risk of bias in prognostic studies in pain rehabilitation using QUIPS: aspects of interrater agreement. Diagn Progn Res 2019;3:5.
6. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, WellsG, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017;358:j4008.
7. Lee A, Youssef I, Osborn VW, Safdieh J, Becker DJ, Schreiber D. The utilization of MGMT promoter methylation testing in United States hospitals for glioblastoma and its impact on prognosis. J Clin Neurosci 2018:51:85–90.
8. Pinson H, Meulen JV, Dedeurwaerdere F, Vanhauwaert D, Broecke CV, Dorpe JV, et al. Weak MGMT gene promoter methylation confers a clinically significant survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: A retrospective cohort study. J Neurooncol 2020;146:55–62.
9. Christians A, Horowski A, Banan R, Lehman U, Bartels S, Beh- ling F. The prognostic role of IDH mutations in homogeneous- ly treated patients with anaplastic astrocytomas and glioblas-tomas. Acta Neuropathol Commun 2019;7(156):1–11.
10. Stanceva G, Goranova T, Laleva M, Kamenova M, Mitkova A, Velinov N. IDH1/IDH2 but not TP53 mutations predict prog- nosis in Bulgarian glioblastoma patients. Biomed Res Int 2014:1–9.
11. Wang K, Wang YY, Ma J, Wang JF, Li SW, Jiang T, et al. Prognos- tic value of MGMT promoter methylation and TP53 mutation in glioblastomas depends on IDH1 mutation. Asian Pac J Can- cer Prev 2014;15(24):10893–8.
12. Armocida D, Pesce A, Frati A, Santoro A, Salvati M. EGFR am- plification is a real independent prognostic impact factor between young adults and adults over 45 yo with wild-type glioblastoma?J Neurooncol 2020;146(2):275–84.
13. Weller M, Kaulich K, Hentschel B, Felsberg J, Gramatzki D, Pi- etsch T, et al. Assessment and prognostic significance of the epidermal growth factor receptor vIII mutation in glioblasto- ma patients treated with concurrent and adjuvant temozolo- mide. IntJ Cancer 2014;134:2437–44.
14. Idoate MA, Echeveste J, Valle RD, Lozaon MD, Aristu J. Biologi- cal and clinical significance of the intratumor heterogeneity of PTEN protein expression and the corresponding molecu- lar abnormalities of the PTEN gene in glioblastomas. Neuro- pathol Appl Neurobiol 2014;40:736–46.
15. Gomes I, Moreno DA, Dos Reis MB, da Silva LS, Leal LF, Gon- çalves GM, et al. Low MGMT digital expression is associated with a better outcome of IDH1 wild-type glioblastomas treat- ed with temozolomide. J Neurooncol 2021;151:135–44.
16. Ali SMA, Shanim MS, Enam SA, Ahmad Z, Adnan Y, Farooqui HA. Immunohistochemical detection and prognostic sig- nificance of p53, epidermal growth factor receptor, murine double minute 2, and isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 inglioblas- toma multiforme patients of Pakistan. Clin Med Insights Oncol 2022;16:1–10.
17. Kucukarda A, Gokyer A, CalogluV, CalogluH, Gokmen I, Ozcan E, et al. Prognostic effect of immunohistochemical scoring on survival in glioblastoma. EJMI 2023;7(1):42–93.
18. Sareen H, Ma Y, Becker TM, Roberts TL, de Souza P, Powter B. Molecular biomarkers in glioblastoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. IntJ Mol Sci 2022;23:8835.
19. Szopa W, Burley TA,Marek GK, KasperaW. Diagnostic and ther- apeutic biomarkers in glioblastoma: Current status and future perspectives. Biomed Res Int 2017;13:8013575.
20. Ohgaki H, Kleihues P. Genetic alterations and signal- ing pathways in the evolution of gliomas. Cancer Sci 2009;100(12):2235–41.
21. Vecchio CA, Giacomini CP, Vogel H. EGFRvIII gene rearrange- ment is an early event in glioblastoma tumorigenesis and ex- pression defines a hierarchy modulated by epigenetic mecha- nisms. Oncogene 2013;32(21):2670–81.
22. Wong E, Nahar N, Hau E, Varikatt W, Gebski V, NgT, et al. Cut- point for Ki-67 proliferation index as a prognostic marker for glioblastoma. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2019;15(1):5–9.
23. Padfield E, Ellis P, Kurian KM. Current therapeutic advances targeting EGFR and EGFRvIII in glioblastoma. Front Oncol 2015;5:5.
24. Reitman ZJ, Yan H. Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 muta- tions in cancer: Alterations at a crossroads of cellular metabo- lism. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102(13):942–3.
25. Kaminska B, Czapski B, Guzik R, Krol SK, Gielniewski B. Con- sequences of IDH1/2 mutations in gliomas and an assess- ment of inhibitors targeting mutated IDH protein. Molecules 2019;24(5):968.
26. Golub D, Iyengar N, Dogra S, WongT, Bready D, Tang K, et al. Mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors as targeted can- cer therapeutics. Front Oncol 2019;9:417.
27. Mellinghoff IK, Penas-Prado M, Peters KB, Burris HA 3rd, Ma- her EA, Janku F, et al. Vorasidenib, a dual inhibitor of mutant IDH1/2, in recurrent or progressive glioma; results of a first-in- human phase 1 trial. Clin Cancer Res 2021;27(16):4491–9.
28. Venugopal S, Watts J. Olutasidenib: From bench to bedside. Blood Adv 2023;7(16):4358–65.
29. Torka P, Thiruvengadam SK, Chen L, Wang X, Chen C, Vuong D, et al. Pevonedistat, a NEDD9-activating enzyme inhibi- tor, in combination with ibrutinib in patients with relapsed/ refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood Cancer J 2023;13(1):9.
30. Karsy M, Neil JA, Guan J, Mahan MA, Colman H, Jensen RL. A practical review of prognostic correlations of molecular bio- markers in glioblastoma. Neurosurg Focus 2015;38(3):1–8.