Pediatric clinical trials for pilocytic astrocytomas using targeted therapies
1. Introduction
The outstanding progress in advanced molecular technologies has provided a tremendous amount of data that has altered the way in which we classify and categorize pediatric brain tumors. From the initial identification of chromosomal aberrations by karyotyping and comparative genomic hybridization, we have rapidly moved to expression array studies and to integrative genomic approaches which allowed the stratification of several pediatric brain tumors into molecular subgroups. These data have not only increased our understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of pediatric brain tumors, but have also identified prognostic markers and opened new avenues for targeted therapies.
One of the most important discoveries in pediatric astrocytomas was the duplication and the mutation of the v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1
Until recently, the biology of diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) was poorly understood. Overexpression of epidermal growth factor receptor (
Integrated genomics has shown that medulloblastoma, the most common malignant pediatric brain tumor, comprises four distinct molecular and clinical variants. The stratification of patients into the Wnt subgroup, the sonic hedgehog (SHH) subgroup, Group 3 and Group 4 may lead to the identification of those patients that will most likely benefit from targeted therapies, like SMO inhibitors. Moreover, this molecular classification may help identify patients predicted to have a poor prognosis, who may benefit from intensified therapies, and patients with a favorable prognosis that potentially benefit from reduced radiation and chemotherapy regimens. It is already known from four independent studies that the Wnt subgroup patients have a very good prognosis while patients in Group 3 have a high incidence of metastasis and a dismal prognosis.
The transcriptional profiling of two large independent cohorts of posterior fossa ependymomas also identified two groups with distinct molecular and clinical features. Group A ependymomas have a balanced genome, occur in younger patients and tumors are located laterally. These patients have a worse clinical outcome and higher incidence of metastasis and recurrence. In contrast, Group B ependymomas occur in the midline and have a better prognosis. Since ependymomas are usually refractory to current chemotherapeutic agents, these discoveries may shed some light into the pathways involved in tumor initiation and progression and also identify new targets for therapy.
We are now facing the next-generation (Next-Gen) sequencing era which will provide further insights into the dysregulated signaling pathways in each tumor type. The identification of driver mutations will allow a better understanding of tumorigenesis and lead to the development of more accurate preclinical models. Moreover, the profiling of transcriptomes, genetic and epigenetic events of large cohorts of tumors will eventually shed some light into the cells of origin of specific subgroups and also the important driver events for tumor initiation, maintenance and progression. On the clinical side, this knowledge will allow the stratification of patients into appropriate risk groups and the tailoring of treatments according to each tumor’s genomic landscape. In this chapter we describe the latest advances in molecular genomics of the most common pediatric brain tumors as well as its prognostic significance and relevance to the clinic. We also highlight the most recent clinical trials using molecular targeted therapies and discuss further possible avenues in the treatment of pediatric brain cancer.
2. Astrocytomas
Astrocytomas are a common brain tumor in children. According to the 2007 classification of the World Health Organization (WHO) they can be classified into four grades (WHO grade I-IV), which reflect their biological and clinical behavior. Pilocytic astrocytomas (WHO grade I) represent the most frequent brain tumor in the pediatric population and have excellent survival rates over 95% [1]. On the other hand, glioblastomas (WHO grade IV) are aggressive tumors, often non-responsive to treatments and with survival rates ranging from 10% to 30% [1]. We will focus on the molecular biology of these two types of pediatric astrocytomas.
2.1. Pilocytic astrocytoma
The first-line treatment for pilocytic astrocytoma (PA) is surgical resection. Although most children with these tumors survive for a long time, some will experience tumor recurrence, especially if the tumor resection is incomplete. Recurrent and progressive tumors are treated with radiation and/or chemotherapy but, until recently, the mechanisms of recurrence and malignant transformation were poorly understood.
Early studies on chromosomal aberrations in PAs showed normal karyotypes in most cases. Trisomy of chromosomes 5 and 7 and 7q gains were some of the few cytogenetic abnormalities found [2]. Using an array-based comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH), Pfister
With the discovery of constitutive activation of MAPK pathway and BRAF alterations in most PAs, there has been an increasing interest in using these targets for novel therapeutic approaches. A number of phase I and phase II clinical trials are ongoing to test small molecule inhibitors of MAPK and related pathways (Table 1).
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
MEK inhibitor | AZD6244 | Phase I | NCT01386450, NCT01089101 | |
RAF inhibitor (multikinase inhibitor) |
Sorafenib | Phase II | NCT01338857 (suspended) | |
mTOR inhibitor | Everolimus | Phase II | NCT01158651, NCT00782626 |
2.2. Glioblastoma multiforme
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common brain tumor in adults and is less frequent in the pediatric population. Despite improvements in neurosurgery and neuro-oncology, children diagnosed with GBM still have a dismal outcome with low survival rates even with aggressive therapeutic regimens. Although the histology of pediatric and adult GBMs appears identical, the molecular biology of these tumors is different. Therefore, the development of effective therapies for GBM in children should probably not rely on advances made in adult tumors.
Mutations in phosphatase and tensin homolog (
It has been shown that overexpression of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) is rare in HGGs but it has also been reported that it is associated with a poor overall survival in children. The
Finaly, a very recent study uncovered an interesting interplay between genetic and epigenetic events in pediatric GBM. The authors performed whole-exome sequencing in 48 pediatric GBMs and identified 44% of tumors harbouring somatic mutations in genes involved in the chromatin remodeling pathway, including the histone H3 gene (
The novel targeted therapies that are currently under clinical investigation for high-grade gliomas, including GBM, are reviewed in reference [15].
3. Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma
Despite decades of clinical research, the prognosis of diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) remains dismal with more than 90% of affected children dying within two years of diagnosis [16]. The only known effective treatment is radiation therapy although in most patients it has a transient effect. Different combinations of chemotherapy, radiation and radiosensitizers were attempted but failed to improve long-term survival [17]. The indication for biopsy in DIPG has been reserved for atypical tumors (prominent enhancement in magnetic ressonance imaging (MRI), low T2/FLAIR signal and/or high signal on diffuse imaging). However, the recognition that it is crucial to understand the biology of DIPG in order to design more rational drug treatments, led to a plea for routine biopsies in these patients. Some groups are already performing regular image-guided stereotactic biopsies in patients with DIPGs [18,19] and, furthermore, biopsies have been included in a clinical trial to decide which patients with DIPG would benefit from targeted therapy with erlotinib, an
The paradigm shift to obtain tissue from patients with DIPG not only increased our knowledge in the molecular biology of the disease but also raised important clinical considerations. Paugh
Another level of gene expression regulation in DIPG occurs through epigenetic mechanisms, including histone modifications. Very recent sudies used whole-genome sequencing in large cohorts of DIPGs to identify somatic mutations in the
The discoveries from the molecular biology of DIPGs identified several drugable targets allowing the development of molecular target-based trials that are summarized in Table 2. Some of these trials have shown a subset of patients with survival longer than expected and, therefore, several other trials are ongoing, some of them including combined therapies [17,31].
Finally, DIPG treatment involves another challenge which is drug distribution. Probably due to an intact blood-brain barrier, penetration of drugs in the pons seems to be poor, a fact demonstrated by the lack of gadolinium enhancement in the MRI in most DIPGs. Therefore, it is crucial to improve drug delivery either by disrupting the blood-brain barrier (e.g. focused ultrasound or drugs that increase permeability such as manitol), by local delivery (tumor injection or convection enhanced delivery) or even nanoparticles [17]. These techniques may promote high drug concentrations in the pons, including agents that normally don’t cross the blood-brain barrier.
|
|
|
|
Imatinib | Phase I | 45.5% | 2007 [32] |
Tipifarnib | Phase I | 36.4% | 2008 [33] |
Gefitinib | Phase I | 48% | 2010 [34] |
Vandetanib | Phase I | 37% | 2010 [35] |
Erlotinib | Phase I | 50% | 2011 [20] |
Gefitinib | Phase II | 56% | 2011 [36] |
Nimotuzumab | Phase II | Median OS 9.6 months | 2011 [37] |
4. Medulloblastoma
Medulloblastoma, the commonest malignant brain tumor in the pediatric population, is no longer considered a single disease. Recent efforts of multiple independent groups have reached to a consensus that medulloblastoma comprises four distinct molecular variants named WNT, SHH, Group 3 and Group 4 [38]. The subgroups have different demographics, genetic profiles and prognosis [39]. This may explain why patients with the same histological disease have different clinical outcomes and a variable response to current treatments including surgery, whole-brain radiation and intensive chemotherapy. Figure 1 summarizes the main features of the four medulloblastoma subgroups.
4.1. WNT medulloblastomas
WNT medulloblastomas are frequent in older children and teenagers and are rarely seen in infants. Patients within this subgroup have usually an excellent outcome with survival rates over 90%. However, Remke
This subgroup is enriched in genes of the WNT pathway. Although few gains and losses were reported in the WNT genome, mutations in
4.2. SHH medulloblastomas
SHH medulloblastomas are frequently found in infants and adults (approximately 60% of cases in each age group) but are rare in childhood. In the SHH subgroup, prognostic factors such as M-stage and desmoplasia are age-dependent. Metastasis at presentation represents a negative prognostic factor only in adults while desmoplasia is associated with worse outcome only in pediatric cases [44]. From a histological point of view this subgroup is unique since it includes tumors of the four main variants (classic, nodular desmoplastic, large-cell anaplastic and medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity).
SHH medulloblastomas are characterized by aberrant expression of SHH pathway genes including
The clinical and molecular distinction of infant and adult SHH medulloblastomas suggests a disparate underlying biology and raises the question of possible different responses to current targeted therapies.
4.3. Group 3 medulloblastomas
Group 3 medulloblastomas are restricted to pediatric patients. Indeed, two recent studies concluded that Group 3 tumors are extremely rare in adults [40,48]. Another feature of this subgroup is its aggressive behavior with high incidence of metastasis, frequent large-cell anaplastic histology and an invariable dismal prognosis (approximately 20 to 30% overall survival). It has been shown that Group 3 medulloblastomas consist of two distinct subtypes one of which harbors frequent amplifications of the
Until recently, there were no known targetable pathways in Group 3 medulloblastomas and the suggested intensification of treatment for these patients would necessarily result in increased toxicity and morbidity (see below).
4.4. Group 4 medulloblastomas
Group 4 tumors represent simultaneously the most common and the less well-understood subgroup of medulloblastomas. They are found across all age groups and have an intermediate prognosis although the adult patients show a reduced survival when compared to their pediatric counterparts. Group 4 medulloblastomas are usually of the classic variant and they rarely present with metastasis. The most frequent genetic aberration in Group 4 tumors, present in up to 80% of cases, is isochromosome 17q (i17q) although
4.5. From genomic revolution to clinical trials in medulloblastoma
Despite important advances in medulloblastoma treatment, approximately 40% of children will have recurrence and 30% will die from the disease. Moreover, the survivors are often left with significant disabilities due to cytotoxic side effects of chemotherapy and radiation to the developing central nervous system (CNS). Identifying the genetic events that drive medulloblastoma is, therefore, critical to develop more effective and less toxic therapies.
Except for SHH inhibitors that have shown some promise in SHH patients [51], there were no other targetable genes or pathways for WNT, Group 3 and Group 4 medulloblastomas. However, very recently published studies from four independent groups dissected the genomic landscape of medulloblastoma using large cohorts of patients and the latest high-throughput technology.
Using SNP arrays in a large cohort of over 1,000 medulloblastoma samples, Northcott
Another interesting observation, consistent with the first published study using genome sequencing in medulloblastoma [54], is the low number of somatic mutations found in these tumors when compared to adult solid tumors and the increased mutation frequency with age [52,55-57]. Jones
The genome sequencing of independent cohorts of medulloblastoma samples and matched blood, identified previously known mutated genes (
The ongoing genomic revolution in medulloblastoma is moving the next generation of clinical trials towards targeted treatments according to the molecular subgroup. SHH inhibitors, including GDC-0449 and NVP-LDE225, already proved its efficacy in tumor growth reduction but the reported acquired resistance suggests that a combination of targeted therapies may be a key approach to improve response [58]. Phase II clinical trials using GDC-0449 are now recruiting pediatric and adult patients with recurrent or refractory medulloblastoma and phase I trials with NVP-LDE225 are recruiting patients with advanced solid tumors including medulloblastoma. Under debate is the de-escalation of therapy in WNT patients and the intensification of treatment and/or targeted therapy for Group 3 patients [59,60]. Finaly, the discovery of a significant number of chromatin modifier genes across medulloblastoma subgroups suggests that histone deacetylase inhibitors may constitute a good therapeutic option in the future.
5. Ependymoma
Ependymoma, the third most common brain tumor in childhood, is still incurable in up to 45% of patients [61]. The gold standard of treatment is maximal safe surgical resection followed by radiation since chemotherapy is usually ineffective. Ependymomas can arise in different regions of the CNS including the cerebral hemispheres, the posterior fossa and the spinal cord. This diversity is extended to its demographic, genetic, clinical and prognostic characteristics. Both children and adults can be affected although posterior fossa tumors are more common in children and supratentorial and spinal tumors occur more frequently in adults. The clinical behavior of ependymoma is variable with some patients experiencing a fatal clinical course while others have a long recurrence-free survival. The lack of novel targeted treatments for ependymoma can be explained by the paucity of cell lines and animal models of the disease.
The genetic heterogeneity of ependymoma has been highlighted by different studies with some cohorts of tumors showing frequent chromosomal alterations and others displaying a balanced genome. Korshunov
The interesting observation that up to 50% of pediatric ependymomas have a balanced genome [62] raises the possibility that epigenetic mechanisms may play a role in ependymoma pathogenesis. Most studies have focused on promoter hypermethylation of candidate genes known to be tumor suppressor genes in ependymoma or frequently methylated in other cancers.
Another less frequent epigenetic event in cancer genomes is hypomethylation. This loss of DNA methylation occurs mainly in repetitive elements (Alu repeats). In a recent study, Xie
The increased knowledge of the genetic and epigenetic events that drive ependymoma may lead to more effective targeted therapies aimed to repair molecular functions and dysregulated pathways. However, there are currently no clinical trials evaluating specific molecular therapies in ependymoma. Despite the recent achievements in ependymoma research, greater progress is needed to decifer the molecular and biological mechanisms of this disease and, ultimately, to improve patient’s clinical outcome.
6. Conclusion
Major steps have been made to a better understanding of the molecular genetics underlying the most common pediatric brain tumors. An important advance was to recognize that adult and pediatric brain tumors are distinct and, therefore, need different therapeutic approaches. This knowledge opened new avenues for targeted therapies and clinical trials based on tumor-specific molecular subgrouping are currently ongoing. When compared to standard chemotherapy and radiation, the use of biological agents has several advantages. They can target cancer cells and spare normal cells in the developing CNS of children and also be used to delay radiotherapy, which is responsible for long-term side effects of treatment. Many of the newer agents are small molecules, with low molecular weight, which facilitates blood-brain barrier penetration. However, despite the enthusiasm with the phase I and phase II clinical trials using biological agents as monotherapy, mainly for progressive and recurrent brain tumors, efficacy has not yet been proven. In the future, combination therapies will likely be needed to target multiple pathways involved in tumorigenesis and to overcome the cytostatic effect of several biological agents. As the amount of data generated by high-throughput studies increases the drugable targets for each pediatric brain tumor, the number of clinical trials will continue to expand aiming a better control of the disease with less morbidity and extended survival.
Acknowledgments
Claudia Faria was supported by a fellowship from The Hospital for Sick Children Research Training Centre and the Garron Family Cancer Centre. She is a PhD candidate from The Programme for Advanced Medical Education, supported by Fundação Gulbenkian, Fundação Champalimaud, Ministério da Saúde e Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal. This work was also supported by grants from the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (grant no. 019073), the Wiley fund, the Laurie Berman Fund for Brain Tumour Research, Pediatric Brain Tumour Foundation of the United States, and B.r.a.i.n.child.
References
- 1.
Ohgaki H, Kleihues P. Population-based studies on incidence, survival rates, and genetic alterations in astrocytic and oligodendroglial gliomas. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2005 Jun;64(6):479-89. - 2.
Dubuc AM, Northcott PA, Mack S, Witt H, Pfister S, Taylor MD. The genetics of pediatric brain tumors. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2010 May;10(3):215-23. - 3.
Pfister S, Janzarik WG, Remke M, Ernst A, Werft W, Becker N, et al. BRAF gene duplication constitutes a mechanism of MAPK pathway activation in low-grade astrocytomas. J Clin Invest. 2008 May;118(5):1739-49. - 4.
Hawkins C, Walker E, Mohamed N, Zhang C, Jacob K, Shirinian M, et al. BRAF-KIAA1549 fusion predicts better clinical outcome in pediatric low-grade astrocytoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2011 Jul 15;17(14):4790-8. - 5.
Jones DT, Gronych J, Lichter P, Witt O, Pfister SM. MAPK pathway activation in pilocytic astrocytoma. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2012 Jun;69(11):1799-811. - 6.
Korshunov A, Meyer J, Capper D, Christians A, Remke M, Witt H, et al. Combined molecular analysis of BRAF and IDH1 distinguishes pilocytic astrocytoma from diffuse astrocytoma. Acta Neuropathol. 2009 Sep;118(3):401-5. - 7.
MacDonald TJ, Aguilera D, Kramm CM. Treatment of high-grade glioma in children and adolescents. Neuro Oncol. 2011 Oct;13(10):1049-58. - 8.
Faury D, Nantel A, Dunn SE, Guiot MC, Haque T, Hauser P, et al. Molecular profiling identifies prognostic subgroups of pediatric glioblastoma and shows increased YB-1 expression in tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Apr 1;25(10):1196-208. - 9.
Pollack IF, Hamilton RL, Burger PC, Brat DJ, Rosenblum MK, Murdoch GH, et al. Akt activation is a common event in pediatric malignant gliomas and a potential adverse prognostic marker: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. J Neurooncol. 2010 Sep;99(2):155-63. - 10.
Bax DA, Mackay A, Little SE, Carvalho D, Viana-Pereira M, Tamber N, et al. A distinct spectrum of copy number aberrations in pediatric high-grade gliomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Jul 1;16(13):3368-77. - 11.
Pollack IF, Finkelstein SD, Burnham J, Holmes EJ, Hamilton RL, Yates AJ, et al. Age and TP53 mutation frequency in childhood malignant gliomas: results in a multi-institutional cohort. Cancer Res. 2001 Oct 15;61(20):7404-7. - 12.
Pollack IF, Finkelstein SD, Woods J, Burnham J, Holmes EJ, Hamilton RL, et al. Expression of p53 and prognosis in children with malignant gliomas. N Engl J Med. 2002 Feb 7;346(6):420-7. - 13.
Qu HQ, Jacob K, Fatet S, Ge B, Barnett D, Delattre O, et al. Genome-wide profiling using single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays identifies novel chromosomal imbalances in pediatric glioblastomas. Neuro Oncol. 2010 Feb;12(2):153-63. - 14.
Schwartzentruber J, Korshunov A, Liu XY, Jones DT, Pfaff E, Jacob K, et al. Driver mutations in histone H3.3 and chromatin remodelling genes in paediatric glioblastoma. Nature. 2012 Feb 9;482(7384):226-31. - 15.
Nageswara Rao AA, Scafidi J, Wells EM, Packer RJ. Biologically targeted therapeutics in pediatric brain tumors. Pediatr Neurol. 2012 Apr;46(4):203-11. - 16.
Hargrave D, Bartels U, Bouffet E. Diffuse brainstem glioma in children: critical review of clinical trials. Lancet Oncol. 2006 Mar;7(3):241-8. - 17.
Jansen MH, van Vuurden DG, Vandertop WP, Kaspers GJ. Diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas: a systematic update on clinical trials and biology. Cancer Treat Rev. 2012 Feb;38(1):27-35. - 18.
Roujeau T, Machado G, Garnett MR, Miquel C, Puget S, Geoerger B, et al. Stereotactic biopsy of diffuse pontine lesions in children. J Neurosurg. 2007 Jul;107(1 Suppl):1-4. - 19.
Pirotte BJ, Lubansu A, Massager N, Wikler D, Goldman S, Levivier M. Results of positron emission tomography guidance and reassessment of the utility of and indications for stereotactic biopsy in children with infiltrative brainstem tumors. J Neurosurg. 2007 Nov;107(5 Suppl):392-9. - 20.
Geoerger B, Hargrave D, Thomas F, Ndiaye A, Frappaz D, Andreiuolo F, et al. Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer pediatric phase I study of erlotinib in brainstem glioma and relapsing/refractory brain tumors. Neuro Oncol. 2011 Jan;13(1):109-18. - 21.
Angelini P, Hawkins C, Laperriere N, Bouffet E, Bartels U. Post mortem examinations in diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma: challenges and chances. J Neurooncol. 2011 Jan;101(1):75-81. - 22.
Broniscer A, Baker JN, Baker SJ, Chi SN, Geyer JR, Morris EB, et al. Prospective collection of tissue samples at autopsy in children with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. Cancer. 2010 Oct 1;116(19):4632-7. - 23.
Caretti V, Jansen MH, van Vuurden DG, Lagerweij T, Bugiani M, Horsman I, et al. Implementation of a Multi-Institutional Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma Autopsy Protocol and Characterization of a Primary Cell Culture. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2012 Jul 27. - 24.
Paugh BS, Qu C, Jones C, Liu Z, Adamowicz-Brice M, Zhang J, et al. Integrated molecular genetic profiling of pediatric high-grade gliomas reveals key differences with the adult disease. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jun 20;28(18):3061-8. - 25.
Paugh BS, Broniscer A, Qu C, Miller CP, Zhang J, Tatevossian RG, et al. Genome-wide analyses identify recurrent amplifications of receptor tyrosine kinases and cell-cycle regulatory genes in diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Oct 20;29(30):3999-4006. - 26.
Zarghooni M, Bartels U, Lee E, Buczkowicz P, Morrison A, Huang A, et al. Whole-genome profiling of pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas highlights platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase as potential therapeutic targets. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Mar 10;28(8):1337-44. - 27.
Barrow J, Adamowicz-Brice M, Cartmill M, MacArthur D, Lowe J, Robson K, et al. Homozygous loss of ADAM3A revealed by genome-wide analysis of pediatric high-grade glioma and diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2011 Feb;13(2):212-22. - 28.
Grill J, Puget S, Andreiuolo F, Philippe C, MacConaill L, Kieran MW. Critical oncogenic mutations in newly diagnosed pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2012 Apr;58(4):489-91. - 29.
Khuong-Quang DA, Buczkowicz P, Rakopoulos P, Liu XY, Fontebasso AM, Bouffet E, et al. K27M mutation in histone H3.3 defines clinically and biologically distinct subgroups of pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas. Acta Neuropathol. 2012 Sep;124(3):439-47. - 30.
Wu G, Broniscer A, McEachron TA, Lu C, Paugh BS, Becksfort J, et al. Somatic histone H3 alterations in pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas and non-brainstem glioblastomas. Nat Genet. 2012 Mar;44(3):251-3. - 31.
Bartels U, Hawkins C, Vezina G, Kun L, Souweidane M, Bouffet E. Proceedings of the diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) Toronto Think Tank: advancing basic and translational research and cooperation in DIPG. J Neurooncol. 2011 Oct;105(1):119-25. - 32.
Pollack IF, Jakacki RI, Blaney SM, Hancock ML, Kieran MW, Phillips P, et al. Phase I trial of imatinib in children with newly diagnosed brainstem and recurrent malignant gliomas: a Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium report. Neuro Oncol. 2007 Apr;9(2):145-60. - 33.
Haas-Kogan DA, Banerjee A, Kocak M, Prados MD, Geyer JR, Fouladi M, et al. Phase I trial of tipifarnib in children with newly diagnosed intrinsic diffuse brainstem glioma. Neuro Oncol. 2008 Jun;10(3):341-7. - 34.
Geyer JR, Stewart CF, Kocak M, Broniscer A, Phillips P, Douglas JG, et al. A phase I and biology study of gefitinib and radiation in children with newly diagnosed brain stem gliomas or supratentorial malignant gliomas. Eur J Cancer. 2010 Dec;46(18):3287-93. - 35.
Broniscer A, Baker JN, Tagen M, Onar-Thomas A, Gilbertson RJ, Davidoff AM, et al. Phase I study of vandetanib during and after radiotherapy in children with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 1;28(31):4762-8. - 36.
Pollack IF, Stewart CF, Kocak M, Poussaint TY, Broniscer A, Banerjee A, et al. A phase II study of gefitinib and irradiation in children with newly diagnosed brainstem gliomas: a report from the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium. Neuro Oncol. 2011 Mar;13(3):290-7. - 37.
Massimino M, Bode U, Biassoni V, Fleischhack G. Nimotuzumab for pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2011 Feb;11(2):247-56. - 38.
Taylor MD, Northcott PA, Korshunov A, Remke M, Cho YJ, Clifford SC, et al. Molecular subgroups of medulloblastoma: the current consensus. Acta Neuropathol. 2012 Apr;123(4):465-72. - 39.
Northcott PA, Korshunov A, Pfister SM, Taylor MD. The clinical implications of medulloblastoma subgroups. Nat Rev Neurol. 2012 Jun;8(6):340-51. - 40.
Remke M, Hielscher T, Northcott PA, Witt H, Ryzhova M, Wittmann A, et al. Adult medulloblastoma comprises three major molecular variants. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jul 1;29(19):2717-23. - 41.
Fattet S, Haberler C, Legoix P, Varlet P, Lellouch-Tubiana A, Lair S, et al. Beta-catenin status in paediatric medulloblastomas: correlation of immunohistochemical expression with mutational status, genetic profiles, and clinical characteristics. J Pathol. 2009 May;218(1):86-94. - 42.
Northcott PA, Korshunov A, Witt H, Hielscher T, Eberhart CG, Mack S, et al. Medulloblastoma comprises four distinct molecular variants. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 10;29(11):1408-14. - 43.
Thompson MC, Fuller C, Hogg TL, Dalton J, Finkelstein D, Lau CC, et al. Genomics identifies medulloblastoma subgroups that are enriched for specific genetic alterations. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Apr 20;24(12):1924-31. - 44.
Northcott PA, Hielscher T, Dubuc A, Mack S, Shih D, Remke M, et al. Pediatric and adult sonic hedgehog medulloblastomas are clinically and molecularly distinct. Acta Neuropathol. 2011 Aug;122(2):231-40. - 45.
Northcott PA, Dubuc AM, Pfister S, Taylor MD. Molecular subgroups of medulloblastoma. Expert Rev Neurother. 2012 Jul;12(7):871-84. - 46.
Al-Halabi H, Nantel A, Klekner A, Guiot MC, Albrecht S, Hauser P, et al. Preponderance of sonic hedgehog pathway activation characterizes adult medulloblastoma. Acta Neuropathol. 2011 Feb;121(2):229-39. - 47.
Ellison DW, Dalton J, Kocak M, Nicholson SL, Fraga C, Neale G, et al. Medulloblastoma: clinicopathological correlates of SHH, WNT, and non-SHH/WNT molecular subgroups. Acta Neuropathol. 2011 Mar;121(3):381-96. - 48.
Kool M, Korshunov A, Remke M, Jones DT, Schlanstein M, Northcott PA, et al. Molecular subgroups of medulloblastoma: an international meta-analysis of transcriptome, genetic aberrations, and clinical data of WNT, SHH, Group 3, and Group 4 medulloblastomas. Acta Neuropathol. 2012 Apr;123(4):473-84. - 49.
Cho YJ, Tsherniak A, Tamayo P, Santagata S, Ligon A, Greulich H, et al. Integrative genomic analysis of medulloblastoma identifies a molecular subgroup that drives poor clinical outcome. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 10;29(11):1424-30. - 50.
Remke M, Hielscher T, Korshunov A, Northcott PA, Bender S, Kool M, et al. FSTL5 is a marker of poor prognosis in non-WNT/non-SHH medulloblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Oct 10;29(29):3852-61. - 51.
Rudin CM, Hann CL, Laterra J, Yauch RL, Callahan CA, Fu L, et al. Treatment of medulloblastoma with hedgehog pathway inhibitor GDC-0449. N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 17;361(12):1173-8. - 52.
Northcott PA, Shih DJ, Peacock J, Garzia L, Morrissy AS, Zichner T, et al. Subgroup-specific structural variation across 1,000 medulloblastoma genomes. Nature. 2012 Aug 2;488(7409):49-56. - 53.
Rausch T, Jones DT, Zapatka M, Stutz AM, Zichner T, Weischenfeldt J, et al. Genome sequencing of pediatric medulloblastoma links catastrophic DNA rearrangements with TP53 mutations. Cell. 2012 Jan 20;148(1-2):59-71. - 54.
Parsons DW, Li M, Zhang X, Jones S, Leary RJ, Lin JC, et al. The genetic landscape of the childhood cancer medulloblastoma. Science. 2011 Jan 28;331(6016):435-9. - 55.
Jones DT, Jager N, Kool M, Zichner T, Hutter B, Sultan M, et al. Dissecting the genomic complexity underlying medulloblastoma. Nature. 2012 Aug 2;488(7409):100-5. - 56.
Pugh TJ, Weeraratne SD, Archer TC, Pomeranz Krummel DA, Auclair D, Bochicchio J, et al. Medulloblastoma exome sequencing uncovers subtype-specific somatic mutations. Nature. 2012 Aug 2;488(7409):106-10. - 57.
Robinson G, Parker M, Kranenburg TA, Lu C, Chen X, Ding L, et al. Novel mutations target distinct subgroups of medulloblastoma. Nature. 2012 Aug 2;488(7409):43-8. - 58.
Metcalfe C, de Sauvage FJ. Hedgehog fights back: mechanisms of acquired resistance against Smoothened antagonists. Cancer Res. 2011 Aug 1;71(15):5057-61. - 59.
Ramaswamy V, Northcott PA, Taylor MD. FISH and chips: the recipe for improved prognostication and outcomes for children with medulloblastoma. Cancer Genet. 2011 Nov;204(11):577-88. - 60.
Leary SE, Olson JM. The molecular classification of medulloblastoma: driving the next generation clinical trials. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2012 Feb;24(1):33-9. - 61.
Merchant TE, Li C, Xiong X, Kun LE, Boop FA, Sanford RA. Conformal radiotherapy after surgery for paediatric ependymoma: a prospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2009 Mar;10(3):258-66. - 62.
Korshunov A, Witt H, Hielscher T, Benner A, Remke M, Ryzhova M, et al. Molecular staging of intracranial ependymoma in children and adults. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jul 1;28(19):3182-90. - 63.
Johnson RA, Wright KD, Poppleton H, Mohankumar KM, Finkelstein D, Pounds SB, et al. Cross-species genomics matches driver mutations and cell compartments to model ependymoma. Nature. 2010 Jul 29;466(7306):632-6. - 64.
Witt H, Mack SC, Ryzhova M, Bender S, Sill M, Isserlin R, et al. Delineation of two clinically and molecularly distinct subgroups of posterior fossa ependymoma. Cancer Cell. 2011 Aug 16;20(2):143-57. - 65.
Wani K, Armstrong TS, Vera-Bolanos E, Raghunathan A, Ellison D, Gilbertson R, et al. A prognostic gene expression signature in infratentorial ependymoma. Acta Neuropathol. 2012 May;123(5):727-38. - 66.
Dubuc AM, Mack S, Unterberger A, Northcott PA, Taylor MD. The epigenetics of brain tumors. Methods Mol Biol. 2012;863:139-53. - 67.
Rogers HA, Kilday JP, Mayne C, Ward J, Adamowicz-Brice M, Schwalbe EC, et al. Supratentorial and spinal pediatric ependymomas display a hypermethylated phenotype which includes the loss of tumor suppressor genes involved in the control of cell growth and death. Acta Neuropathol. 2012 May;123(5):711-25. - 68.
Xie H, Wang M, Bonaldo Mde F, Rajaram V, Stellpflug W, Smith C, et al. Epigenomic analysis of Alu repeats in human ependymomas. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Apr 13;107(15):6952-7.