Hide metadata

dc.contributor.authorHåvik, Annette B
dc.contributor.authorBrandal, Petter
dc.contributor.authorHonne, Hilde
dc.contributor.authorDahlback, Hanne-Sofie S
dc.contributor.authorScheie, David
dc.contributor.authorHektoen, Merete
dc.contributor.authorMeling, Torstein R
dc.contributor.authorHelseth, Eirik
dc.contributor.authorHeim, Sverre
dc.contributor.authorLothe, Ragnhild A
dc.contributor.authorLind, Guro E
dc.date.accessioned2015-10-20T10:53:24Z
dc.date.available2015-10-20T10:53:24Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Translational Medicine. 2012 Mar 06;10(1):36
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/47037
dc.description.abstractBackground Methylation of the O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) gene promoter is a favorable prognostic factor in glioblastoma patients. However, reported methylation frequencies vary significantly partly due to lack of consensus in the choice of analytical method. Method We examined 35 low- and 99 high-grade gliomas using quantitative methylation specific PCR (qMSP) and pyrosequencing. Gene expression level of MGMT was analyzed by RT-PCR. Results When examined by qMSP, 26% of low-grade and 37% of high-grade gliomas were found to be methylated, whereas 97% of low-grade and 55% of high-grade gliomas were found methylated by pyrosequencing. The average MGMT gene expression level was significantly lower in the group of patients with a methylated promoter independent of method used for methylation detection. Primary glioblastoma patients with a methylated MGMT promoter (as evaluated by both methylation detection methods) had approximately 5 months longer median survival compared to patients with an unmethylated promoter (log-rank test; pyrosequencing P = .02, qMSP P = .06). One third of the analyzed samples had conflicting methylation results when comparing the data from the qMSP and pyrosequencing. The overall survival analysis shows that these patients have an intermediate prognosis between the groups with concordant MGMT promoter methylation results when comparing the two methods. Conclusion In our opinion, MGMT promoter methylation analysis gives sufficient prognostic information to merit its inclusion in the standard management of patients with high-grade gliomas, and in this study pyrosequencing came across as the better analytical method.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.rightsHåvik et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
dc.rightsAttribution 2.0 Generic
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
dc.titleMGMT promoter methylation in gliomas-assessment by pyrosequencing and quantitative methylation-specific PCR
dc.typeJournal article
dc.date.updated2015-10-20T10:53:24Z
dc.creator.authorHåvik, Annette B
dc.creator.authorBrandal, Petter
dc.creator.authorHonne, Hilde
dc.creator.authorDahlback, Hanne-Sofie S
dc.creator.authorScheie, David
dc.creator.authorHektoen, Merete
dc.creator.authorMeling, Torstein R
dc.creator.authorHelseth, Eirik
dc.creator.authorHeim, Sverre
dc.creator.authorLothe, Ragnhild A
dc.creator.authorLind, Guro E
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-10-36
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-51199
dc.type.documentTidsskriftartikkel
dc.type.peerreviewedPeer reviewed
dc.identifier.fulltextFulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/47037/1/12967_2011_Article_1012.pdf
dc.type.versionPublishedVersion
cristin.articleid36


Files in this item

Appears in the following Collection

Hide metadata

Attribution 2.0 Generic
This item's license is: Attribution 2.0 Generic