umu.sePublications
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Do we really know who has an MGMT methylated glioma?: Results of an international survey regarding use of MGMT analyses for glioma
Show others and affiliations
2020 (English)In: Neuro-Oncology Practice, ISSN 2054-2577, Vol. 7, no 1, p. 68-76Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Glioma O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status informs clinical decision making. Worldwide different methods and cutoff levels are used, which can lead to discordant methylation results.

Methods: We conducted an international survey to clarify which methods are regularly used and why. We also explored opinions regarding international consensus on methods and cutoff.

Results: The survey had 152 respondents from 25 countries. MGMT methylation status is determined for all glioblastomas in 37% of laboratories. The most common methods are methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (msPCR) (37%) and pyrosequencing (34%). A method is selected for simplicity (56%), cost-effectiveness (50%), and reproducibility of results (52%). For sequencing, the number of CpG sites analyzed varies from 1–3 up to more than 16. For 50% of laboratories, the company producing the kit determines which CpG sites are examined, whereas 33% select the sites themselves. Selection of cutoff is equally distributed among a cutoff defined in the literature, by the local laboratory, or by the outside laboratory performing the analysis. This cutoff varies, reported from 1% to 30%, and in 1 laboratory tumor is determined as methylated in case of 1 methylated CpG site of 17 analyzed. Some report tumors as unmethylated or weakly vs highly methylated. An international consensus on MGMT methylation method and cutoff is warranted by 66% and 76% of respondents, respectively. The method preferred would be msPCR (45%) or pyrosequencing (42%), whereas 18% suggest next-generation sequencing.

Conclusion: Although analysis of MGMT methylation status is routine, there is controversy regarding laboratory methods and cutoff level. Most respondents favor development of international consensus guidelines.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Oxford University Press, 2020. Vol. 7, no 1, p. 68-76
Keywords [en]
glioma, international consensus guidelines, international survey, laboratory methods and cutoff level, MGMT testing
National Category
Cancer and Oncology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-169110DOI: 10.1093/nop/npz039ISI: 000518531400009PubMedID: 32025325OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-169110DiVA, id: diva2:1416212
Available from: 2020-03-23 Created: 2020-03-23 Last updated: 2020-03-23Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(804 kB)3 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 804 kBChecksum SHA-512
0cc0e1aef65e6cafc8e4a57df34d606216a817ec587ef8ea6f93340cb4129c1afc9d755322a7da346d56cf2125f53ad21b65cd21b613e0ea80028eee943b78d6
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Henriksson, Roger

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Henriksson, Roger
By organisation
Department of Radiation Sciences
Cancer and Oncology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 3 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 6 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf