Cargando…
Diagnostic accuracy of 1p/19q codeletion tests in oligodendroglioma: A comprehensive meta‐analysis based on a Cochrane systematic review
Codeletion of chromosomal arms 1p and 19q, in conjunction with a mutation in the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 or 2 gene, is the molecular diagnostic criterion for oligodendroglioma, IDH mutant and 1p/19q codeleted. 1p/19q codeletion is a diagnostic marker and allows prognostication and prediction of t...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9208578/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34958131 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nan.12790 |
_version_ | 1784729763468804096 |
---|---|
author | Brandner, Sebastian McAleenan, Alexandra Jones, Hayley E. Kernohan, Ashleigh Robinson, Tomos Schmidt, Lena Dawson, Sarah Kelly, Claire Leal, Emmelyn Spencer Faulkner, Claire L. Palmer, Abigail Wragg, Christopher Jefferies, Sarah Vale, Luke Higgins, Julian P. T. Kurian, Kathreena M. |
author_facet | Brandner, Sebastian McAleenan, Alexandra Jones, Hayley E. Kernohan, Ashleigh Robinson, Tomos Schmidt, Lena Dawson, Sarah Kelly, Claire Leal, Emmelyn Spencer Faulkner, Claire L. Palmer, Abigail Wragg, Christopher Jefferies, Sarah Vale, Luke Higgins, Julian P. T. Kurian, Kathreena M. |
author_sort | Brandner, Sebastian |
collection | PubMed |
description | Codeletion of chromosomal arms 1p and 19q, in conjunction with a mutation in the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 or 2 gene, is the molecular diagnostic criterion for oligodendroglioma, IDH mutant and 1p/19q codeleted. 1p/19q codeletion is a diagnostic marker and allows prognostication and prediction of the best drug response within IDH‐mutant tumours. We performed a Cochrane review and simple economic analysis to establish the most sensitive, specific and cost‐effective techniques for determining 1p/19q codeletion status. Fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐based loss of heterozygosity (LOH) test methods were considered as reference standard. Most techniques (FISH, chromogenic in situ hybridisation [CISH], PCR, real‐time PCR, multiplex ligation‐dependent probe amplification [MLPA], single nucleotide polymorphism [SNP] array, comparative genomic hybridisation [CGH], array CGH, next‐generation sequencing [NGS], mass spectrometry and NanoString) showed good sensitivity (few false negatives) for detection of 1p/19q codeletions in glioma, irrespective of whether FISH or PCR‐based LOH was used as the reference standard. Both NGS and SNP array had a high specificity (fewer false positives) for 1p/19q codeletion when considered against FISH as the reference standard. Our findings suggest that G banding is not a suitable test for 1p/19q analysis. Within these limits, considering cost per diagnosis and using FISH as a reference, MLPA was marginally more cost‐effective than other tests, although these economic analyses were limited by the range of available parameters, time horizon and data from multiple healthcare organisations. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9208578 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92085782022-06-27 Diagnostic accuracy of 1p/19q codeletion tests in oligodendroglioma: A comprehensive meta‐analysis based on a Cochrane systematic review Brandner, Sebastian McAleenan, Alexandra Jones, Hayley E. Kernohan, Ashleigh Robinson, Tomos Schmidt, Lena Dawson, Sarah Kelly, Claire Leal, Emmelyn Spencer Faulkner, Claire L. Palmer, Abigail Wragg, Christopher Jefferies, Sarah Vale, Luke Higgins, Julian P. T. Kurian, Kathreena M. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol Reviews Codeletion of chromosomal arms 1p and 19q, in conjunction with a mutation in the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 or 2 gene, is the molecular diagnostic criterion for oligodendroglioma, IDH mutant and 1p/19q codeleted. 1p/19q codeletion is a diagnostic marker and allows prognostication and prediction of the best drug response within IDH‐mutant tumours. We performed a Cochrane review and simple economic analysis to establish the most sensitive, specific and cost‐effective techniques for determining 1p/19q codeletion status. Fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐based loss of heterozygosity (LOH) test methods were considered as reference standard. Most techniques (FISH, chromogenic in situ hybridisation [CISH], PCR, real‐time PCR, multiplex ligation‐dependent probe amplification [MLPA], single nucleotide polymorphism [SNP] array, comparative genomic hybridisation [CGH], array CGH, next‐generation sequencing [NGS], mass spectrometry and NanoString) showed good sensitivity (few false negatives) for detection of 1p/19q codeletions in glioma, irrespective of whether FISH or PCR‐based LOH was used as the reference standard. Both NGS and SNP array had a high specificity (fewer false positives) for 1p/19q codeletion when considered against FISH as the reference standard. Our findings suggest that G banding is not a suitable test for 1p/19q analysis. Within these limits, considering cost per diagnosis and using FISH as a reference, MLPA was marginally more cost‐effective than other tests, although these economic analyses were limited by the range of available parameters, time horizon and data from multiple healthcare organisations. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-03-03 2022-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9208578/ /pubmed/34958131 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nan.12790 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Neuropathological Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Reviews Brandner, Sebastian McAleenan, Alexandra Jones, Hayley E. Kernohan, Ashleigh Robinson, Tomos Schmidt, Lena Dawson, Sarah Kelly, Claire Leal, Emmelyn Spencer Faulkner, Claire L. Palmer, Abigail Wragg, Christopher Jefferies, Sarah Vale, Luke Higgins, Julian P. T. Kurian, Kathreena M. Diagnostic accuracy of 1p/19q codeletion tests in oligodendroglioma: A comprehensive meta‐analysis based on a Cochrane systematic review |
title | Diagnostic accuracy of 1p/19q codeletion tests in oligodendroglioma: A comprehensive meta‐analysis based on a Cochrane systematic review |
title_full | Diagnostic accuracy of 1p/19q codeletion tests in oligodendroglioma: A comprehensive meta‐analysis based on a Cochrane systematic review |
title_fullStr | Diagnostic accuracy of 1p/19q codeletion tests in oligodendroglioma: A comprehensive meta‐analysis based on a Cochrane systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Diagnostic accuracy of 1p/19q codeletion tests in oligodendroglioma: A comprehensive meta‐analysis based on a Cochrane systematic review |
title_short | Diagnostic accuracy of 1p/19q codeletion tests in oligodendroglioma: A comprehensive meta‐analysis based on a Cochrane systematic review |
title_sort | diagnostic accuracy of 1p/19q codeletion tests in oligodendroglioma: a comprehensive meta‐analysis based on a cochrane systematic review |
topic | Reviews |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9208578/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34958131 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nan.12790 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT brandnersebastian diagnosticaccuracyof1p19qcodeletiontestsinoligodendrogliomaacomprehensivemetaanalysisbasedonacochranesystematicreview AT mcaleenanalexandra diagnosticaccuracyof1p19qcodeletiontestsinoligodendrogliomaacomprehensivemetaanalysisbasedonacochranesystematicreview AT joneshayleye diagnosticaccuracyof1p19qcodeletiontestsinoligodendrogliomaacomprehensivemetaanalysisbasedonacochranesystematicreview AT kernohanashleigh diagnosticaccuracyof1p19qcodeletiontestsinoligodendrogliomaacomprehensivemetaanalysisbasedonacochranesystematicreview AT robinsontomos diagnosticaccuracyof1p19qcodeletiontestsinoligodendrogliomaacomprehensivemetaanalysisbasedonacochranesystematicreview AT schmidtlena diagnosticaccuracyof1p19qcodeletiontestsinoligodendrogliomaacomprehensivemetaanalysisbasedonacochranesystematicreview AT dawsonsarah diagnosticaccuracyof1p19qcodeletiontestsinoligodendrogliomaacomprehensivemetaanalysisbasedonacochranesystematicreview AT kellyclaire diagnosticaccuracyof1p19qcodeletiontestsinoligodendrogliomaacomprehensivemetaanalysisbasedonacochranesystematicreview AT lealemmelynspencer diagnosticaccuracyof1p19qcodeletiontestsinoligodendrogliomaacomprehensivemetaanalysisbasedonacochranesystematicreview AT faulknerclairel diagnosticaccuracyof1p19qcodeletiontestsinoligodendrogliomaacomprehensivemetaanalysisbasedonacochranesystematicreview AT palmerabigail diagnosticaccuracyof1p19qcodeletiontestsinoligodendrogliomaacomprehensivemetaanalysisbasedonacochranesystematicreview AT wraggchristopher diagnosticaccuracyof1p19qcodeletiontestsinoligodendrogliomaacomprehensivemetaanalysisbasedonacochranesystematicreview AT jefferiessarah diagnosticaccuracyof1p19qcodeletiontestsinoligodendrogliomaacomprehensivemetaanalysisbasedonacochranesystematicreview AT valeluke diagnosticaccuracyof1p19qcodeletiontestsinoligodendrogliomaacomprehensivemetaanalysisbasedonacochranesystematicreview AT higginsjulianpt diagnosticaccuracyof1p19qcodeletiontestsinoligodendrogliomaacomprehensivemetaanalysisbasedonacochranesystematicreview AT kuriankathreenam diagnosticaccuracyof1p19qcodeletiontestsinoligodendrogliomaacomprehensivemetaanalysisbasedonacochranesystematicreview |