umu.sePublications
Change search
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
INTERNATIONAL SURVEY REGARDING USE OF MGMT ANALYSES FOR GLIOMA
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiation Sciences.
2018 (English)In: Neuro-Oncology, ISSN 1522-8517, E-ISSN 1523-5866, Vol. 20, p. 215-215Article in journal, Meeting abstract (Other academic) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: MGMT promotor methylation status is part of glioma diagnostics, supporting clinical decision making. Internationally different methods and cut-off levels are used to determine whether a tumor is methylated or unmethylated. Treatment decisions can be inadequate, when methylation status of the tumor can change due to the analysis and cutoff used. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted an international survey, consisting of 27 questions, to clarify which methods are regularly used in different clinico-pathological settings and why a specific method is selected. We also asked about opinions regarding an international consensus on methods and cut-off levels. RESULTS: The survey was answered by 146 respondents - mainly neuropathologists - from 24 countries. The responses show that MGMT methylation status is determined for all gliomas in 37% of laboratories, while 8% do not perform the analysis. The most commonly used methods are msPCR (37%) and pyrosequencing (34%). The main reasons for choosing a specific method are simplicity (56%), cost-effectiveness (49%) and reproducibility of results (49%). For those using pyrosequencing, the most common number of CpG sites analyzed is four, but varies between 1–3 and more than 16. For 50% of laboratories, the company producing the kit determines which CpG sites should be examined, while 33% select the sites themselves. Selection of cut-off is equally distributed between a cut-off a) published in the literature, b) defined by the lab or c) defined by the company performing the analysis. This cut-off varies between different pathology departments. In one lab tumor is determined as methylated in case of 1 methylated CpG site of 17 analyzed. For others cut-off for methylated varies from 1% to 30%. Some report tumor as unmethylated or weakly versus highly methylated. An international consensus on MGMT methylation method is believed to be of advantage by 66%, while only 20% do not find this necessary. A consensus on a cut-off is warranted by 76%. Most suggest that the consensus method should be msPCR (45%) or pyrosequencing (42%), while 17% suggest next generation sequencing. CONCLUSION: While analysis and use of MGMT methylation status has become routine in the clinico-pathological setting, there is still controversy regarding the best laboratory method and the clinically relevant cut-off level. Most respondents suggest that an international consensus on both method and cut-off should be established.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC , 2018. Vol. 20, p. 215-215
National Category
Cancer and Oncology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-157546ISI: 000460645600002OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-157546DiVA, id: diva2:1299073
Conference
13th Meeting of the European-Association-of-Neurooncology (EANO), OCT 10-14, 2018, Stockholm, SWEDEN
Available from: 2019-03-26 Created: 2019-03-26 Last updated: 2019-03-26Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Authority records BETA

Henriksson, Roger

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Henriksson, Roger
By organisation
Department of Radiation Sciences
In the same journal
Neuro-Oncology
Cancer and Oncology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 80 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