Advertisement

SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine

, Volume 1, Issue 11, pp 861–868 | Cite as

Molecular Characteristics of Pediatric Ependymomas: A Systematic Review

  • Monserrat Pérez-Ramírez
  • Teresa Juárez-Cedillo
  • Antonio García-Méndez
  • Normand García-HernándezEmail author
Medicine
  • 111 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Medicine

Abstract

The prognosis for patients diagnosed with ependymoma is relatively poor, with a 5-year overall survival rate of 24–75%. Currently, tumors are treated by surgical resection followed by radiotherapy, as resection is the most consistent prognostic marker (up to 80%). Therefore, there is a pressing need to improve our understanding of the biology of these tumors and to develop new therapeutic targets. The present work was a systematic review of the current molecular knowledge of pediatric ependymomas. From January 2000 to December 2017, we carried out a search using “MeSH” (Medical Subject Heading), and “free-text” protocols in the databases Medline/PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EMBASE (OVID platform), combining the terms chromosomal alterations, genetic changes, epigenetic changes, and protein expression changes. We selected articles with samples from pediatric patients and chose publications with complete clinical features. Only 33 articles met the criteria for a meta-analysis, suggested by the state of methylation and expression of a characteristic marker of pediatric ependymomas. We found a chromosomal alteration and one gene associated with survival; these are candidates for bad prognosis biomarkers.

Keywords

Ependymoma Molecular characteristic Systematic review Pediatric patients 

Introduction

Ependymoma (EP) arises from the ependymal cells of the fourth cerebral ventricle and the spinal cord. These tumors can develop in both adult and children patients; however, intracranial EP occurs more frequently in children, whereas spinal EPs are more frequent in adults. These tumors are classified by their location as infra and supratentorial EPs [1].

EP is the third most common pediatric tumor of the central nervous system and the prognosis is relatively poor for patients with this diagnosis, with a 5-year overall survival rate of 24–75%; therefore, EPs are considered a public health problem. These tumors are treated with surgical resection followed by radio- and chemotherapy. Actually, resection is the best prognostic marker (up to 80%) used for clinical diagnostic; therefore, it is necessary to understand the tumorigenesis of EP in order to develop new therapeutic targets [2, 3].

The clinical features of EPs used for prognosis—such as patient age, tumor location, extent of surgical resection, and tumor histopathology grade—are insufficient and have inconsistent results, so it is necessary to come up with strategies to improve treatment and provide an exact prognosis [4, 5]. Several studies have suggested that epigenetic silencing of tumor suppressor genes and expression changes are an important mechanisms of EP pathogenesis in supratentorial and spinal tumors [2].

In this systematic review, we aimed to determine the molecular characteristics of these tumors that may establish tumor markers.

Methods

Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

An electronic search was carried out in the Medline/PubMed and SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Ovid/EMBASE databases and was restricted to articles published in English between January 2000 and December 2017. The intent was to identify chromosomal alterations and changes in the methylation status and gene expression that are part of the molecular characteristics of pediatric EP and that could be use as molecular prognostic biomarkers. These studies were examined based on their title, abstract, and keywords. The strategy used a combination of the following key terms: “Ependymoma pediatric”; “Ependymoma children”; “Ependymoma molecular”; “Brain tumor molecular ependymoma”; “Ependymoma biomarker” (Fig. 1). We also examined the references in the selected articles, looking for studies that were not selected in the initial query.
Fig. 1

Flow diagram of process for identification of relevant studies

Included articles were based on an a priori selected set of criteria: articles published in English, complete data of patients, complete text, cross-sectional studies, molecular data studies, and studies carried out totally or partially in pediatric patients (under 18 years of age). If the reviewed articles were based on pediatric and adult patients, it was considered that the samples would be easily identified through the codes or numbering that different authors granted for each of the samples. The patients had complete clinical characteristics that included age, sex, and diagnosis; in addition, the results described were specific for each sample.

The primary outcome was data on changes in chromosomal alterations, methylation status, gene and protein expression reported in pediatric patients, cross-sectional studies, molecular changes associated with the patient’s prognosis, frequency of appearance of molecular changes, and values of hazard ratios and odds ratios.

The exclusion criteria included case-controlled studies, studies without measures of association, and case series. No systematic reviews or meta-analyses on this topic were found.

Data Extraction

Three reviewers participated in the review process. Two reviewers completed the initial review, examined the papers, confirmed the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and completed the second stage, extracting all data; a third reviewer independently examined the data to identify any discrepancies between reviewers. Discrepancies in article selection were resolved by discussion among the reviewers. A similar approach was used to determine which of these studies should be included in the meta-analysis. Information about date of publication, country where the study was undertaken, sample size, data relating to participants, a specific illness, age, sex, histopathology diagnosis, and tumor location was acquired from the included articles for full review. Odds ratios (ORs), and rate ratios (RRs), with 95% confidence interval (CI) for each chromosomal alteration, genetic, epigenetic, and protein expression were extracted when they were available.

Statistical Analysis

Thirty-three studies were selected and included for this systematic review. The number of studies, analyzed by condition, varied from two to five. For each study and each characteristic, an event rate and its CI were computed from the reported numbers, considering the reference group. Review Manager 5.3 was used for the analyses [Review Manager (RevMan) [computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014]. Random-effects models were conducted, separating the studies into one analysis for those reporting OR statistics and another for those reporting OR. Heterogeneity was estimated using the I2 statistic [6]. The I2 describes the percentage of variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance alone [6, 7]. As the I2 percentage increases, so too does the proportion of effect size variability that is due to between-study heterogeneity.

In order to calculate bias, the tests described by Begg et al. and Egger et al. [8, 9] were used. Funnel plots were generated with a confidence interval of 95%, according to the random-effects meta-analysis proposed by DerSimonian and Laird [10]; Tau2 adjusts the standard error and the effects of the intervention of the studies included in the meta-analysis. Finally, the frequency of chromosomal, genetic, and epigenetic alterations was analyzed.

Results

Article Selection

Initially, we identified 3564 related articles. After evaluation, 33 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria as follows: 14 contained studies on chromosomal alterations, 5 had methylation data, 4 articles contained information related to the expression of messenger RNA, and 13 referred to proteins. Table 1 shows the studies included in the analysis with sample size, study design, and the alteration detected in the molecule of interest.
Table 1

Articles included in the systematic review

Reference

Methodology

Detected alteration

N

Suzuki et al. 2000 [11]

IHCa

Protein

11

Lamszus et al. 2001 [12]

PCRb

Chromosomal alteration

10

Hirose et al. 2001 [13]

CGHc

Chromosomal alteration

14

Ward et al. 2001 [14]

CGH

Chromosomal alteration

36

Dyer et al. 2002 [15]

CGH

Chromosomal alteration

42

Gilbertson et al. 2002 [16]

qRT-PCRd

Methylation

16

Jeuken et al. 2002 [17]

CGH

Chromosomal alteration

5

Singh et al. 2002 [18]

IHC

Protein

10

Zamecnik et al. 2003 [19]

IHC

Protein

31

Waha et al. 2004 [20]

MS-PCRe

Expression

27

Ammerlaan et al. 2005 [1]

aCGHf

Chromosomal alteration

19

Tabori et al. 2006 [21]

qRT-PCR

Methylation

65

Karakoula et al. 2008 [22]

qRT-PCR

Methylation and expression

31

Moronaru et al. 2008 [23]

PCR

Chromosomal alteration

29

Pezzolo et al. 2008 [24]

CGH

Chromosomal alteration

18

Rand et al. 2008 [25]

aCGH

Chromosomal alteration

7

Snuderl et al. 2008 [26]

IHC

Protein

41

Puget et al. 2009 [27]

aCGH

Chromosomal alteration

59

Rousseau et al. 2010 [28]

aCGH

Chromosomal alteration

45

Andreiuolo et al. 2010 [29]

IHC

Protein

66

Korshunov et al. 2010 [30]

aCGH

Chromosomal alteration

190

Alexiou et al. 2011 [31]

IHC

Protein

13

Modena et al. 2012 [5]

IHC

Protein

47

Hagel et al. 2013 [32]

IHC

Protein

25

Moreno et al. 2013 [33]

IHC

Protein

12

Barszczyk et al. 2014 [34]

qRT-PCR

Expression

97

Gupta et al. 2014 [35]

FISHh

Chromosomal alteration

19

Virág et al. 2014 [36]

IHC

Protein

16

Mack et al. 2014 [37]

Array

Methylation

10

Li et al. 2015 [38]

IHC

Protein

174

Araki et al. 2016 [39]

FISH, IHC

Chromosomal alteration, protein

52

Chen et al. 2016 [40]

IHC

Protein

174

Gojo et al. 2017 [41]

qRT-PCR

Methylation and expression

24

aImmunochemistry, bpolymerase chain reaction, ccomparative genomic hybridization, dreal-time polymerase chain reaction, emethylation-specific PCR, farray CGH, hfluorescence hybridization in situ

Chromosomal Alterations

From the selected articles, 14 were related to chromosomal alterations to the EP. We considered a total of 545 samples from the analyzed publications. According to this analysis, the alterations oscillated up to 2% of the total data (data not shown). The most frequent chromosomal changes were gains at 1q, 9q, 9p, and 17q and losses at 1p, 3p, 6q, and 13q. We found chromosomal alterations (losses and gains) in several cytobands. From these data, we found that chromosomes 1q, 6q, 9p, 13q, and 22q are features of pediatric ependymal tumors (Fig. 2). The alterations showed the following statistical values: to 1q (Tau2 = 1.53, I2 = 45%, P = 0.02, χ2 = 9.13), to 9p (Tau2 = 1.27, χ2 = 6.84, I2 = 42%, P = 0.24) to 6q (Tau2 = 0.00, χ2 = 2.06, I2 = 0%, P = 0.58), to 13q (Tau2 = 0.00, χ2 = 0.08, I2 = 0%, P = 0.14), and to 22q indicated perfect homogeneity (Tau2 = 0.00, χ2 = 0.08, I2 = 0%, P = 0.14). Over a wide range, our model indicated heterogeneity with the following statistical values: Tau2 = 1.72, χ2 = 37.8, P = 0.01, I2 = 0%. Therefore, chromosomal alterations in 1q, 6q, 9p, 13q, and 22q are features of pediatric ependymal tumors. Additionally, HR values were considered. We found that chromosome 1q25 at intracranial EP is the best candidate for a prognostic biomarker in pediatric EP, and this chromosome correlated with lower progression-free survival and overall survival (Fig. 3). Our model was heterogeneous with the following statistical values: χ2 = 4.76, P = 0.03, I2 = 79%, Tau2 = 2.46. The Funnel plot show symmetric data dispersion.
Fig. 2

Forest plot of chromosomal alterations

Fig. 3

Forest plot of chromosomal alterations and prognostic

Methylation Analysis

We assessed five related articles on methylation that included 247 patients, in which we found genes with changed methylation status in the pediatric EP: hTERT, RAC2, and CHIBBY, with the following frequencies 27.8%, 9.2%, and 8.8%, respectively. These results suggested that hypomethylation of hTERT is associated with pediatric patients diagnosed with intracranial EP (Fig. 4a); however, the change in the methylation status did not correlate with the prognosis. The model indicated homogeneity with the following statistical values: Tau2 = 0.0, χ2 = 0.02, I2 = 0%. The Funnel plot show symmetric data dispersion.
Fig. 4

(a) Forest plot of methylation status. (b) hTERT and prognostic

Gene Expression

We selected four articles that met the eligibility criteria with 136 samples. It was observed that genes with the most frequent expression changes were hTERT (36%), ERBB (33%), ERBB1 (12%), ERBB2 (12%), ERBB3 (9%), STB (4%), SHC1 (6%), and TPR (9%). We observed that hTERT and ERBB genes are features of pediatric intracranial ependymal tumors, but only hTERT correlated with a bad prognosis for patients with the following statistical values: Tau2 = 1.21, χ2 = 3.31, P = 0.19, I2 = 40%, which indicated that our model was heterogeneous (Fig. 4b) The funnel plot shows symmetric data dispersion.

Protein Expression

We selected 14 publications that met the eligibility criteria with protein expression assays, with a total of 697 patients showing different states of protein expression. We reviewed the frequencies of the results, where it was observed that EGFR was found with 22.02% of the cases, with strong expression, and with 18.75% with absence of protein expression; for Cav-1 with 12.35% had a strong expression, and 13.54% had weak staining. With respect to YB1, the expression was weak with a prevalence of 19.94%. EZH2 showed weak or negative staining with a prevalence of 19.35%. NCL showed strong staining in 19.94% and weak staining in 10.86% of the cases (data not shown).

Discussion

We found 3564 articles that were related to EP, but most referred to the clinical aspects of this neoplasm and some others did not meet the inclusion criteria, such as articles published in English, with complete data of patients, complete text, cross-sectional studies, molecular data studies, and studies carried out totally or partially in pediatric patients (under 18 years of age). Therefore, a total of 33 studies related to EP were included in this work. These papers were related to molecular studies in EP and included complete data of patients and complied with the eligibility criteria. Regarding data analysis, we considered the value of OR and HR; heterogeneity was evaluated with χ2, P value, and I2; the publication biases were evaluated using the funnel plot and Tau2 values [8, 9, 10].

EPs have been classified into subgroups: Posterior Fosa Group A (PFA) and Group B (PFB), each associated with distinct transcriptomic, genetic, epigenetic, and clinical features. Cases of the PFA subgroup were almost exclusively found in young children. The subgroups of supratentorial EP ST-YAP1 and ST-RELA are common in children; the C11orf95-RELA fusions are the main drivers of ST-EPN-RELA subgroup tumors [42]. It is important to determine if other molecular characteristics are involved in tumorigenesis and are candidates for use as prognostic markers.

The following alterations were reported: losses in 1p, 3p11, 3p12, 3p23-p13, 3p24, 3q23-qter, 4q33-qter, 18q22.2, 22, gains distributed along chromosomes 7, 12, 15, cytobands 6q14–q27, 9q13, 9q21–q32, 9q33, 9q34, 10q25.2–q26.3, 10q25.2–q26.3 and 19p13, the loss at 18q22.2. These alterations were significantly associated with patients over 3 years [24, 28]; after data analysis and considering biases analysis, we found that the most frequent and characteristic chromosomal changes of the ependymal tumors were gains at 1q, 9q, and 17q and losses at 1p, 3p, 6q, 13q, and 22q. Furthermore, the regions 6q24.3 and 6q25.2–q25.3 were defined as the regions with the highest number of deletions and could play a role in the pathogenesis and biology of EP [23].

It was determined that the most important chromosomal alterations, such as the chromosome 22 loss, was that found in 57.5% of the studied EP cases; it was associated with 45% of intracranial EP cases and 82% of spinal EP [1]. This is consistent with the idea that the loss or mutation of NF2 is frequently involved in their development, ranging from 30% to 71% of the patients [12, 15, 18]. Another important chromosomal alteration is a gain at 1q, which is one of the most common regions with a gain in EP [24, 25]. It has therefore been important to investigate the gain at 1q as a potential marker of a poor prognosis in pediatric EPs treated in a standard manner [15]. The cytoband 1q25 is associated with a bad prognosis for patients because of this correlation with lower progression-free survival and overall survival [27].

Finally, it has been defined that 9q33–34 is the region with the most frequent gains and its occurrence correlated significantly with relapse [27]. We found a greater incidence at relapse compared with the initial diagnosis for a gain at 1q, 9q34, 15q22, and 18q21, and losses at 6q [27, 30].

Regarding the genes reported to have changes in methylation, we found that the most frequent genes were CHIBBY, RAC2, and hTERT, in 8.8%, 9.2%, and 27.8% of the cases, respectively. It is possible that loss of RAC2 function has a greater impact in younger patients, whose central nervous system is still under development. It has been reported in EPs that the CHIBBY promoter has a high frequency of methylation. The downregulation of CHIBBY in cancer cells might provide information regarding the use of CHIBBY as a therapeutic target and prognostic factors have been associated with tumorigenesis [22, 43]. Furthermore, the results suggested that apart from less aggressive molecular subtypes, hTERT promoter hypomethylation might characterize intracranial ependymal tumors with a more favorable outcome [41]. It has even been suggested that hTERT and CHIBBY methylation changes are characteristic of pediatric ependymomas, but they are not yet associated with the patient’s prognosis. Furthermore, the CpG island methylator phenotype in EP proposed by Mack et al. [37] allows us to stratify these tumors in PFA-CIMP+ and PFB-CIMP−, thus highlighting the distinct epigenetic differences among them.

In relation to gene expression, we found the hTERT, ERBB, ERBB1, ERBB2, ERBB3, STB, SHC1, and TPR genes were overexpressed. In several publications, a series of characteristic and prognostic molecular markers have been suggested, but no consensus on the matter has been reached. However, it has been reported that ERBB1, ERBB2, ERBB3, and ERBB4 are important in the development of EP and participate in cell proliferation [16]. Witt et al. [44] classify EPs into two transcriptionally defined main subgroups: PFA and PFB; Group A tumors arose in younger patients (median age 2.5 years) whereas Group B tumors occurred predominantly in older patients (median age 20).

Moreover, it has been proposed that inhibition of telomerase enzymes is associated with an increased progression resulting in the lack of proliferation, self-renewal, and tumorigenicity; these findings suggested that the telomerase can be used as prognostic marker and therapeutic target in pediatric EP [34]. By exploring molecular mechanisms, telomerase activity has been described as a characteristic potential biomarker, showing an association of telomerase reactivation with a chromosome 1q gain and RelA fusion [41]. According to our analysis, considering the biases analysis, OR, and HR value, the hTERT and ERBB genes are characteristic in pediatric EP, but only hTERT can be correlated with the prognosis. The hTERT expression can be used to divide the resected tumors into good and bad prognostic groups because the EP lacking telomerase activity are unable to maintain telomeres and proliferative indefinitely, suggesting that less aggressive therapeutic intervention may be offered for children with telomerase-negative tumors [21, 34].

About protein expression, several research groups have proposed different proteins as features of ependymomas and as potential prognostic biomarkers. A previous study suggested an association between the overexpression of PDGFR protein, in tumor and in the tumor endothelia, has been presented that overexpression of PGDFRs could have a good prognostic role in EP [33]. It has been observed that EPs showed at least focal immunopositivity for MDM2, and only some showed immunopositivity for P53. These findings are consistent with previous reports describing ependymomas rarely have P53 gene mutations and that neoplasms with MDM2 amplification typically lack P53 mutations that deregulate the cell cycle [11]. Our findings correlate with Gupta et al. [35]; the proteins NOTCH-1, TN-C, and Hes-1 showed a significantly higher expression in grade III tumors in comparison to grade II tumors.

Conclusion

The general results suggest that protein expression plays an important role in pediatric ependymomas and that it can be considered as a possible molecular biomarker of prognosis. Chromosomes 1q and 22q are features in pediatric EP, and the gain at 1q25 has a high probability of being used as a prognostic biomarker. When considering the poor prognosis and survival rate of patients, the hTERT gene changes in expression and methylation status may play an important role in the development of pediatric ependymal tumors. Nevertheless, the results should be interpreted with caution. Additional research is needed to assess the true effect of protein expression to identify patients at risk.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the scholarship CVU 404762 granted from CONACYT and IMSS 011-2013 for the development of the student, and the postgrad program of Ciencias Biológicas, from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. We thank the research scholarship of IMSS Foundation A. C. given to Dr. Normand García Hernández. We thank the given support to Dr. Fabio A. Salamanca Gómez from Hospital de Pediatría “Dr. Silvestre Frenk Freund,” IMSS.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Conceptualization by N.G.-H. and M.P.-R. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by M.P.-R., T.J.-C., A.G.-M., and N.G.-H. The first draft of the manuscript was written by M.P.-R. and T.J.-C., and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. Supervision by N.G.-H. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

We are grateful for the funding provided by the CONACYT Sectoral Funds S0008-2010-1, 142013. We thank the FIS IMSS for the support FIS/IMSS/PROT/949, 2009-785-042 and R-2014-785-094.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

The project was carried out under the authorization of the molecular biomarker search protocol for ependymal tumors in pediatric patients with registration number R-2014-785-094, at the Ethics Committee of National Ethics Commission from the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, IMSS. All data have been kept in strict confidentiality.

Informed Consent

The tests were carried out following the rules established in the Helsinki agreement. All participants were duly informed and provided their written consent for each of the procedures.

References

  1. 1.
    Ammerlaan ACJ, De Bustos C, Ararou A. Localization of a putative low-penetrance ependymoma susceptibility locus to 22q11 using a chromosome 22 tiling-path genomic microarray. Genes Chromosom Cancer. 2005;43:329–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rogers HA, Kilday JP, Mayne C. 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;123:711–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nambirajan A, Sharma MC, Gupta RK. Study of stem cell marker nestin and its correlation with vascular endothelial growth factor and microvascular density in ependymomas. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2014;40:714–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lukashova-v. Zangen I, Kneitz S, Monoranu CM. Ependymoma gene expression profiles associated with histological subtype, proliferation, and patient survival. Acta Neuropathol. 2007;113:325–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Modena P, Buttarelli FR, Miceli R. Predictors of outcome in an AIEOP series of childhood ependymomas: a multifactorial analysis. 2012; 14: 1346–1356.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses need for consistency, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC192859/pdf/3270557.pdf Accessed 28 June 2018.
  7. 7.
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Suzuki SO, Iwaki T. Amplification and overexpression of mdm2 gene in ependymomas. Mod Pathol. 2000;13:548–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lamszus K, Lachenmayer L, Heinemann U. Molecular genetic alterations on chromosomes 11 and 22 in ependymomas. Int J Cancer. 2001;91:803–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hirose Y, Aldape K, Bollen A. Chromosomal abnormalities subdivide ependymal tumors into clinically relevant groups. Am J Pathol. 2001;158:1137–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ward S, Harding B, Wilkins P. Gain of 1q and loss of 22 are the most common changes detected by comparative genomic hybridisation in paediatric ependymoma. Genes Chromosom Cancer. 2001;32:59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dyer S, Prebble E, Davison V. Genomic imbalances in pediatric intracranial ependymomas define clinically relevant groups. Am J Pathol. 2002;161:2133–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gilbertson RJ, Bentley L, Hernan R. ERBB receptor signaling promotes ependymoma cell proliferation and represents a potential novel therapeutic target for this disease. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8:3054–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jeuken JWM, Sprenger SHE, Gilhuis J. Correlation between localization, age, and chromosomal imbalances in ependymal tumours as detected by CGH. J Pathol. 2002;197:238–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Singh PK, Gutmann DH, Fuller CE. Differential involvement of protein 4.1 family members DAL-1 and NF2 in intracranial and intraspinal ependymomas. Mod Pathol. 2002;15:526–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zamecnik J, Snuderl M, Eckschlager T. Pediatric intracranial ependymomas: prognostic relevance of histological, immunohistochemical, and flow cytometric factors. Mod Pathol. 2003;16:980–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Waha A, Koch A, Hartmann W. Analysis of HIC-1 methylation and transcription in human ependymomas. Int J Cancer. 2004;110:542–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tabori U, Ma J, Carter M. Human telomere reverse transcriptase expression predicts progression and survival in pediatric intracranial ependymoma. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1522–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karakoula K, Suarez-Merino B, Ward S. Real-time quantitative PCR analysis of pediatric ependymomas identifies novel candidate genes including TPR at 1q25 and CHIBBY at 22q12–q13. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2008;47:1005–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Monoranu CM, Huang B, Zangen IL Correlation between 6q25.3 deletion status and survival in pediatric intracranial ependymomas. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2008; 182: 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pezzolo A, Capra V, Raso A. Identification of novel chromosomal abnormalities and prognostic cytogenetics markers in intracranial pediatric ependymoma. Cancer Lett. 2008;261:235–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rand V, Prebble E, Ridley L. Investigation of chromosome 1q reveals differential expression of members of the S100 family in clinical subgroups of intracranial paediatric ependymoma. Br J Cancer. 2008;99:1136–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Snuderl M, Chi SN, De Santis SM. Prognostic value of tumor microinvasion and metalloproteinases expression in intracranial pediatric ependymomas. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2008;67:911–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Puget S, Grill J, Valent A. Candidate genes on chromosome 9q33–34 involved in the progression of childhood ependymomas. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1884–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rousseau A, Idbaih A, Ducray F. Specific chromosomal imbalances as detected by array CGH in ependymomas in association with tumor location, histological subtype and grade. J Neuro-Oncol. 2010;97:353–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Andreiuolo F, Puget S, Peyre M. Neuronal differentiation distinguishes supratentorial and infratentorial childhood ependymomas. Neuro-Oncology. 2010;12:1126–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Korshunov A, Witt H, Hielscher T. Molecular staging of intracranial ependymoma in children and adults. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3182–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alexiou GA, Stefanaki K, Moschovi M. Immunohistochemical expression of cell cycle/apoptosis regulators and epidermal growth factor receptor in pediatric intracranial ependymomas. J Child Neurol. 2011;26:195–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hagel C, Treszl A, Fehlert J. Supra- and infratentorial pediatric ependymomas differ significantly in NeuN, p75 and GFAP expression. J Neuro-Oncol. 2013;112:191–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moreno L, Popov S, Jury A. Role of platelet derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) over-expression and angiogenesis in ependymoma. J Neuro-Oncol. 2013;111:169–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barszczyk M, Buczkowicz P, Castelo-Branco P, Mack SC, Ramaswamy V, Mangerel J, et al. Telomerase inhibition abolishes the tumorigenicity of pediatric ependymoma tumor-initiating cells. Acta Neuropathol. 2014;128:863–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gupta RK, Sharma MC, Suri V. Study of chromosome 9q gain, Notch pathway regulators and tenascin-C in ependymomas. J Neuro-Oncol. 2014;116:267–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Virág J, Kenessey I, Haberler C. Angiogenesis and angiogenic tyrosine kinase receptor expression in pediatric brain tumors. Pathol Oncol Res. 2014;20:417–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mack SC, Witt H, Piro RM. Epigenomic alterations define lethal CIMP-positive ependymomas of infancy. Nature. 2014;506:445–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Li AM, Dunham C, Tabori U. EZH2 expression is a prognostic factor in childhood intracranial ependymoma: a Canadian pediatric brain tumor consortium study. Cancer. 2015;121:1499–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Araki A, Chocholous M, Gojo J. Chromosome 1q gain and tenascin-C expression are candidate markers to define different risk groups in pediatric posterior fossa ependymoma. Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2016;4:88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chen C, Chen L, Yao Y. Nucleolin overexpression is associated with an unfavorable outcome for ependymoma: a multifactorial analysis of 176 patients. J Neuro-Oncol. 2016;127:43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gojo J, Lötsch D, Spiegl-Kreinecker . Telomerase activation in posterior fossa group a ependymomas is associated with dismal prognosis and chromosome 1q gain. Neuro-Oncology 2017; 19: 1183–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pajtler KW, Witt H, Sill M. Molecular classification of ependymal tumors across all CNS compartments, histopathological grades, and age groups. Cancer Cell. 2015;27:728–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cai C, Liu L, Shangguan H. Anti-oncogenic activity of Chibby in the development of human nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Oncol Lett. 2018:5849–58.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Witt H, Mack SC, Ryzhova M. Delineation of two clinically and molecularly distinct subgroups of posterior fossa ependymoma. Cancer Cell. 2011;20:143–57.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Unidad de Investigación Médica en Genética Humana, Hospital de Pediatría “Dr. Silvestre Frenk Freud,” Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXIInstituto Mexicano del Seguro SocialCiudad de MéxicoMexico
  2. 2.Unidad de Investigación Epidemiológica y en Servicios de Salud, Área Envejecimiento, CNM Siglo XXI, IMSS, Actualmente Comisionada en Unidad de Investigación en Epidemiología ClínicaHospital Regional núm. 1 Dr. Carlos MacGregor Sánchez Navarro, IMSSCiudad de MéxicoMexico
  3. 3.Neurocirugía Pediátrica, Hospital General “Dr. Gaudencio González Garza,” Centro Médico Nacional “La Raza”Instituto Mexicano del Seguro SocialCiudad de MéxicoMexico

Personalised recommendations