Second-generation molecular subgrouping of medulloblastoma: an international meta-analysis of Group 3 and Group 4 subtypes

In 2012, an international consensus paper reported that medulloblastoma comprises four molecular subgroups (WNT, SHH, Group 3, and Group 4), each associated with distinct genomic features and clinical behavior. Independently, multiple recent reports have defined further intra-subgroup heterogeneity in the form of biologically and clinically relevant subtypes. However, owing to differences in patient cohorts and analytical methods, estimates of subtype number and definition have been inconsistent, especially within Group 3 and Group 4. Herein, we aimed to reconcile the definition of Group 3/Group 4 MB subtypes through the analysis of a series of 1501 medulloblastomas with DNA-methylation profiling data, including 852 with matched transcriptome data. Using multiple complementary bioinformatic approaches, we compared the concordance of subtype calls between published cohorts and analytical methods, including assessments of class-definition confidence and reproducibility. While the lowest complexity solutions continued to support the original consensus subgroups of Group 3 and Group 4, our analysis most strongly supported a definition comprising eight robust Group 3/Group 4 subtypes (types I–VIII). Subtype II was consistently identified across all component studies, while all others were supported by multiple class-definition methods. Regardless of analytical technique, increasing cohort size did not further increase the number of identified Group 3/Group 4 subtypes. Summarizing the molecular and clinico-pathological features of these eight subtypes indicated enrichment of specific driver gene alterations and cytogenetic events amongst subtypes, and identified highly disparate survival outcomes, further supporting their biological and clinical relevance. Collectively, this study provides continued support for consensus Groups 3 and 4 while enabling robust derivation of, and categorical accounting for, the extensive intertumoral heterogeneity within Groups 3 and 4, revealed by recent high-resolution subclassification approaches. Furthermore, these findings provide a basis for application of emerging methods (e.g., proteomics/single-cell approaches) which may additionally inform medulloblastoma subclassification. Outputs from this study will help shape definition of the next generation of medulloblastoma clinical protocols and facilitate the application of enhanced molecularly guided risk stratification to improve outcomes and quality of life for patients and their families.

[1]  Sirintra Nakjang,et al.  Novel molecular subgroups for clinical classification and outcome prediction in childhood medulloblastoma: a cohort study , 2017, The Lancet. Oncology.

[2]  Gianluca Bontempi,et al.  A comprehensive overview of Infinium HumanMethylation450 data processing , 2013, Briefings Bioinform..

[3]  Richard Simon,et al.  Overfitting, generalization, and MSE in class probability estimation with high‐dimensional data , 2014, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[4]  Arie Perry,et al.  Medulloblastoma: clinicopathological correlates of SHH, WNT, and non-SHH/WNT molecular subgroups , 2011, Acta Neuropathologica.

[5]  Scott L. Pomeroy,et al.  Rapid, reliable, and reproducible molecular sub-grouping of clinical medulloblastoma samples , 2011, Acta Neuropathologica.

[6]  A. Goldenberg,et al.  Intertumoral Heterogeneity within Medulloblastoma Subgroups. , 2017, Cancer cell.

[7]  Dirk Troost,et al.  Integrated Genomics Identifies Five Medulloblastoma Subtypes with Distinct Genetic Profiles, Pathway Signatures and Clinicopathological Features , 2008, PloS one.

[8]  Claire L Weston,et al.  beta-Catenin status predicts a favorable outcome in childhood medulloblastoma: the United Kingdom Children's Cancer Study Group Brain Tumour Committee. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  Jane E. Visvader,et al.  Cells of origin in cancer , 2011, Nature.

[10]  Paul A. Northcott,et al.  DNA methylation profiling of medulloblastoma allows robust subclassification and improved outcome prediction using formalin-fixed biopsies , 2013, Acta Neuropathologica.

[11]  Scott L. Pomeroy,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 , 2012, Acta Neuropathologica.

[12]  G. Reifenberger,et al.  The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary , 2016, Acta Neuropathologica.

[13]  M. Kool,et al.  Risk stratification of childhood medulloblastoma in the molecular era: the current consensus , 2016, Acta Neuropathologica.

[14]  S. Clifford,et al.  The potential impact of tumour biology on improved clinical practice for medulloblastoma: progress towards biologically driven clinical trials , 2009, British journal of neurosurgery.

[15]  H. Gohlke,et al.  Minimal methylation classifier (MIMIC): A novel method for derivation and rapid diagnostic detection of disease-associated DNA methylation signatures , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[16]  T. Curran,et al.  Genomics identifies medulloblastoma subgroups that are enriched for specific genetic alterations. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  B. Scheithauer,et al.  The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system , 2007, Acta Neuropathologica.

[18]  Scott L. Pomeroy,et al.  Molecular subgroups of medulloblastoma: the current consensus , 2011, Acta Neuropathologica.

[19]  Gary D Bader,et al.  Enhancer hijacking activates GFI1 family oncogenes in medulloblastoma , 2014, Nature.

[20]  Colin J. Daniel,et al.  Proteomics, Post-translational Modifications, and Integrative Analyses Reveal Molecular Heterogeneity within Medulloblastoma Subgroups. , 2018, Cancer cell.

[21]  P. Northcott,et al.  Molecular subgroups of medulloblastoma , 2012, Expert review of neurotherapeutics.

[22]  Till Acker,et al.  DNA methylation-based classification of central nervous system tumours , 2018, Nature.

[23]  Roland Eils,et al.  The whole-genome landscape of medulloblastoma subtypes , 2017, Nature.

[24]  David J. Hand,et al.  A Simple Generalisation of the Area Under the ROC Curve for Multiple Class Classification Problems , 2001, Machine Learning.

[25]  Richard Simon,et al.  Class probability estimation for medical studies , 2014, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[26]  D. Figarella-Branger,et al.  Prognostic effect of whole chromosomal aberration signatures in standard-risk, non-WNT/non-SHH medulloblastoma: a retrospective, molecular analysis of the HIT-SIOP PNET 4 trial , 2018, The Lancet. Oncology.

[27]  David T. W. Jones,et al.  Subgroup-specific prognostic implications of TP53 mutation in medulloblastoma. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[28]  Chao Chen,et al.  Using Random Forest to Learn Imbalanced Data , 2004 .

[29]  Volker Hovestadt,et al.  Robust molecular subgrouping and copy-number profiling of medulloblastoma from small amounts of archival tumour material using high-density DNA methylation arrays , 2013, Acta Neuropathologica.

[30]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent. , 2010, Journal of statistical software.

[31]  Alark Joshi,et al.  Unboxing cluster heatmaps , 2017, BMC Bioinformatics.

[32]  G. Brier VERIFICATION OF FORECASTS EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF PROBABILITY , 1950 .

[33]  Webster K. Cavenee,et al.  Erratum: The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system (Acta Neuropathol (2007) vol. 114 (97-109)) , 2007 .

[34]  D. Ellison,et al.  Wnt/Wingless Pathway Activation and Chromosome 6 Loss Characterise a Distinct Molecular Sub-Group of Medulloblastomas Associated with a Favourable Prognosis , 2006, Cell cycle.

[35]  Emmanuel Barillot,et al.  Aberrant ERBB4-SRC Signaling as a Hallmark of Group 4 Medulloblastoma Revealed by Integrative Phosphoproteomic Profiling. , 2018, Cancer cell.

[36]  J. Mesirov,et al.  Integrative genomic analysis of medulloblastoma identifies a molecular subgroup that drives poor clinical outcome. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[37]  Steven J. M. Jones,et al.  Subgroup-specific structural variation across 1,000 medulloblastoma genomes , 2012, Nature.

[38]  Matthew E. Ritchie,et al.  limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies , 2015, Nucleic acids research.