Multicenter Prospective Validation of a DNA Methylation-Based Predictor of Meningioma Recurrence Risk and Molecular Classification
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Meningiomas have been demonstrated to have significant heterogeneity between patients and even within each WHO grade, making prognostication challenging with current standard of care classifications. We previously developed a DNA methylation-based predictor (PMID 31158293) of meningioma recurrence risk following surgery and validated this in retrospective cohorts. For this study we utilize prospectively collected samples from multiple institutions enriched for biologically aggressive meningiomas to confirm the utility of our predictor in prognosticating meningioma patients and informing selection for adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). Methods: DNA was extracted from meningioma tumor tissue and bisulfite converted. Genome-wide DNA methylation profiles were generated with the Illumina EPIC Beadchip Array and imported, processed, and normalized as previously described. Clinical data elements including progression-free survival (PFS) were extracted from the medical records and corroborated with radiographic neuroimaging. The performance of our previous methylation-based predictor was compared with a WHO grade predictor using generalized boosted regression modeling using previously published prognostic methylation probes compared to WHO grade as the sole feature by generating time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and computing area under the ROC curves (AUCs) along with their 95% confidence interval using bootstrap resampling with 10,000 resamples. Results: 173 meningiomas treated from 2018 to 2021 were included in preliminary analysis. Most patients were female (115/173, 66%) and median age was 59 (interquartile range 49-71). The cohort was enriched for WHO grade 2 (59/173, 34%) and 3 (26/173, 14%) meningiomas. Most cases received a gross total resection (GTR; 97/173, 56%). DKFZ classification confirmed the histologic diagnosis of meningioma in all instances ([ Fig. 1A ]). Meningiomas were also classified into their molecular groups as previously published by our group (PMID 34433969), UCSF (PMID 35534562), and Baylor (PMID 35108039) ([ Fig. 1B ]) based on methodologies of the original publications. Meningiomas in could be largely dichotomized into either low-risk (MG1 or MG2, Immune-enriched or Merlin-intact, MenG A or MenG B) or high-risk molecular groups (MG3 or MG4, Hypermitotic, MenG C). When DNA methylation risk scores were calculated for each tumor, there was a significant increase in risk scores with increasing WHO grade and MG ([ Fig. 1C, D ]) with PFS reflecting these differences ([ Fig. 1E, F ]). WHO grade 2 meningiomas had a bimodal distribution of risk scores, reflecting their heterogeneity. Using Cox proportional hazards modeling, increasing methylome recurrence risk was associated with a significantly increased hazard of tumor recurrence (HR 4.16, 95% CI 2.14–8.09, p < 0.001) ([ Fig. 2A ]). When cases were dichotomized into a low- and high-risk methylation group, the high-risk methylation cases had significantly worse PFS compared to the low-risk cases ([ Fig. 2B ]). The methylome-based predictor had substantially improved performance in predicting 5-year PFS compared to WHO grade alone (ΔAUC = 0.10, 95% CI: 0.09–0.11, [ Fig. 2C ]). Following results of methylation modeling, 59 cases (34%) were prescribed adjuvant RT following surgery. Conclusions: DNA methylation modeling outperforms conventional WHO classification in outcome prediction in a novel, independent, prospective cohort of meningiomas enriched for clinically aggressive cases and may be effectively used for real time prognostication, patient counseling, and referral for adjuvant RT. Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Publication History Article published online: 05 February 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».