BACKGROUND: Atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors are highly malignant embryonal central nervous system (CNS) tumors that were defined as an entity in 1996. As compared with other malignant CNS tumors, their biological behavior is particularly aggressive, but patients may benefit from an intensified treatment. Atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors display a complex histomorphology, which renders them prone to misdiagnosis. They occur predominantly in young children, with an estimated prevalence of 1% to 2% among all pediatric CNS tumors. However, population‐based data on the incidence of these tumors are not yet available.METHODS: A nation‐wide survey of malignant high‐grade CNS tumors (World Health Organization grade III/IV), diagnosed in children (aged birth to 14 years) from 1996 to 2006 was conducted by the Austrian Brain Tumor Registry. A central histopathology review was performed including the assessment of SMARCB1 (INI1) protein status.RESULTS: A total of 311 newly diagnosed, malignant CNS tumors were included. Atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors constituted the sixth most common entity (6.1%), referring to an age‐standardized incidence rate of 1.38 per 1,000,000 person‐years in children. Peak incidence was found in the birth to 2 years age group, where they were as common as CNS primitive neuroectodermal tumors and medulloblastomas. A total of 47.4% of atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors were initially diagnosed, whereas 52.6% were retrospectively detected by the central review. The 5‐year survival of atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor patients was 39.5%, with 66.7% in the correctly diagnosed group versus 15.0% in the not recognized group (P = .0469).CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and pathologists should be aware of the high incidence of atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors in young children to optimize diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients with these tumors. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.

Immunohistochemical lack of nuclear INI1 protein expression has been recently described as characteristic finding in atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors (AT/RTs), and has been suggested as useful marker to distinguish AT/RTs from other malignant pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumors. In this study, we examined a large series of malignant pediatric CNS tumors to determine the immunohistochemical expression of INI1 protein in different malignant pediatric tumor entities. Archival paraffin-embedded biopsy specimens of 289 malignant pediatric CNS tumors including medulloblastomas, supratentorial primitive neuroectodermal tumors, glioblastomas, anaplastic astrocytomas, anaplastic ependymomas, choroid plexus carcinomas, germ cell tumors, and AT/RTs were analyzed immunohistochemically for expression of nuclear INI1 protein. Positive INI1 staining was observed in 263 tumors. Lack of INI1 protein was detectable in 26 tumors. Seventeen of the 26 tumors showed morphologically characteristic features of AT/RTs, whereas 9 embryonal tumors did not display rhabdoid features. Tumors without rhabdoid phenotype but lack of INI1 showed an aggressive clinical course and poor response to conventional treatment regimens. In summary, immunohistochemical expression of INI1 protein is lacking in tumors displaying characteristic morphologic features of AT/RT. Furthermore, a certain number of embryonal tumors without rhabdoid features but lack of INI1 protein and aggressive biologic behavior can be detected. We conclude that INI1 protein analysis should be routinely performed in all malignant pediatric embryonal CNS tumors to detect cases with lack of INI1 protein, because patients with these tumors are likely to benefit from intensified treatment.

In the 5th edition of the WHO CNS tumor classification (CNS5, 2021), multiple molecular characteristics became essential diagnostic criteria for many additional CNS tumor types. For those tumors, an integrated, “histomolecular” diagnosis is required. A variety of approaches exists for determining the status of the underlying molecular markers. The present guideline focuses on the methods that can be used for assessment of the currently most informative diagnostic and prognostic molecular markers for the diagnosis of gliomas, glioneuronal and neuronal tumors. The main characteristics of the molecular methods are systematically discussed, followed by recommendations and information on available evidence levels for diagnostic measures. The recommendations cover DNA and RNA next-generation-sequencing, methylome profiling, and select assays for single/limited target analyses, including immunohistochemistry. Additionally, because of its importance as a predictive marker in IDH-wildtype glioblastomas, tools for the analysis of MGMT promoter methylation status are covered. A structured overview of the different assays with their characteristics, especially their advantages and limitations, is provided, and requirements for input material and reporting of results are clarified. General aspects of molecular diagnostic testing regarding clinical relevance, accessibility, cost, implementation, regulatory, and ethical aspects are discussed as well. Finally, we provide an outlook on new developments in the landscape of molecular testing technologies in neuro-oncology.

The mainstay of treatment for adult patients with gliomas, glioneuronal and neuronal tumors consists of combinations of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. For many systemic cancers, targeted treatments are a part of the standard of care, however, the predictive significance of most of these targets in central nervous system (CNS) tumors remains less well-studied. Despite that, there is increasing use of advanced molecular diagnostics that identify potential targets, and tumor-agnostic regulatory approvals on targets also present in CNS tumors have been granted. This raises the question of when and for which targets it is meaningful to test in adult patients with CNS tumors. This evidence-based guideline reviews the evidence available for targeted treatment for alterations in the RAS/MAPK pathway (BRAF, NF1), in growth factor receptors (EGFR, ALK, fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK), platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha, and ROS1), in cell cycle signaling (CDK4/6, MDM2/4, and TSC1/2) and altered genomic stability (mismatch repair, POLE, high tumor mutational burden (TMB), homologous recombination deficiency) in adult patients with gliomas, glioneuronal and neuronal tumors. At present, targeted treatment for BRAF p.V600E alterations is to be considered part of the standard of care for patients with recurrent gliomas, pending regulatory approval. For approved tumor agnostic treatments for NTRK fusions and high TMB, the evidence for efficacy in adult patients with CNS tumors is very limited, and treatment should preferably be given within prospective clinical registries and trials. For targeted treatment of CNS tumors with FGFR fusions or mutations, clinical trials are ongoing to confirm modest activity so far observed in basket trials. For all other reviewed targets, evidence of benefit in CNS tumors is currently lacking, and testing/treatment should be in the context of available clinical trials.

The revised WHO classification of tumors of the CNS 2016 has introduced the concept of the integrated diagnosis. The definition of medulloblastoma entities now requires a combination of the traditional histological information with additional molecular/genetic features. For definition of the histopathological component of the medulloblastoma diagnosis, the tumors should be assigned to one of the four entities classic, desmoplastic/nodular (DNMB), extensive nodular (MBEN), or large cell/anaplastic (LC/A) medulloblastoma. The genetically defined component comprises the four entities WNT-activated, SHH-activated and TP53 wildtype, SHH-activated and TP53 mutant, or non-WNT/non-SHH medulloblastoma. Robust and validated methods are available to allow a precise diagnosis of these medulloblastoma entities according to the updated WHO classification, and for differential diagnostic purposes. A combination of immunohistochemical markers including β-catenin, Yap1, p75-NGFR, Otx2, and p53, in combination with targeted sequencing and copy number assessment such as FISH analysis for MYC genes allows a precise assignment of patients for risk-adapted stratification. It also allows comparison to results of study cohorts in the past and provides a robust basis for further treatment refinement. .

Audencel is a dendritic cell (DC)-based cellular cancer immunotherapy against glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). It is characterized by loading of DCs with autologous whole tumor lysate and in vitro maturation via “danger signals”. The recent phase II “GBM-Vax” trial showed no clinical efficacy for Audencel as assessed with progression-free and overall survival in all patients. Here we present immunological research accompanying the trial with a focus on immune system factors related to outcome and Audencel’s effect on the immune system. Methodologically, peripheral blood samples (from apheresis before Audencel or venipuncture during Audencel) were subjected to functional characterization via enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISPOT) assays connected with cytokine bead assays (CBAs) as well as phenotypical characterization via flow cytometry and mRNA quantification. GBM tissue samples (from surgery) were subjected to T cell receptor sequencing and immunohistochemistry. As results we found: Patients with favorable pre-existing anti-tumor characteristics lived longer under Audencel than Audencel patients without them. Pre-vaccination blood CD8+ T cell count and ELISPOT Granzyme B production capacity in vitro upon tumor antigen exposure were significantly correlated with overall survival. Despite Audencel’s general failure to induce a significant clinical response, it nevertheless seemed to have an effect on the immune system. For instance, Audencel led to a significant up-regulation of the Th1-related immunovariables ELISPOT IFNγ, the transcription factor T-bet in the blood and ELISPOT IL-2 in a dose-dependent manner upon vaccination. Post-vaccination levels of ELISPOT IFNγ and CD8+ cells in the blood were indicative of a significantly better survival. In summary, Audencel failed to reach an improvement of survival in the recent phase II clinical trial. No clinical efficacy was registered. Our concomitant immunological work presented here indicates that outcome under Audencel was influenced by the state of the immune system. On the other hand, Audencel also seemed to have stimulated the immune system. Overall, these immunological considerations suggest that DC immunotherapy against glioblastoma should be studied further – with the goal of translating an apparent immunological response into a clinical response. Future research should concentrate on investigating augmentation of immune reactions through combination therapies or on developing meaningful biomarkers.