Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 290197

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : August | Volume : 16 | Issue : 8 | Page : EC06 - EC11 Full Version

Immunohistochemical Analysis of TP53 and PTEN Expression in Glioblastoma Multiforme Patients of Western Rajasthan, India: An Observational Study


Published: August 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/57495.16710
Garima, Sharad Thanvi, Poonam Elhence, Kishore Khatri, Roshan Verma, Vijay Verma, Hanuman Prasad Toshniwal, Shailendra Sharma

1. Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, GMC, Pali, Rajasthan, India. 2. Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India. 3. Professor, Department of Pathology, AIIMS, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India. 4. Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India. 5. Assistant Professor, Department of Pathology, GMC, Pali, Rajasthan, India. 6. Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India. 7. Professor, Department of Pathology, GMC, Pali, Rajasthan, India. 8. Research Scientist C, Multi-Disciplinary Research Unit, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Garima,
Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, GMC, Pali-306401, Rajasthan, India.
E-mail: vermavijay71@yahoo.com

Abstract

Introduction: Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) is the most aggressive brain tumour with a dismal prognosis. Very few studies on its diagnosis, prognosis and therapeutics have been attempted in the past on Indian population. Standard treatment of this highly aggressive tumour yields little survival benefit; hence, greater attention is now being paid to personalised treatment and, correspondingly, to the expression of specific molecular markers with the goal of assessing their possible therapeutic as well as prognostic significance.

Aim: To estimate the proportion of Tumour Protein 53 (TP53) and PTEN (Phosphatase and Tensin Homolog) expression in GBM patients of Western Rajasthan, India.

Materials and Methods: This study was a ambispective, single institutional observational study done on 35 brain tissue biopsies of histopathologically diagnosed and confirmed cases of GBM based on the World Health Organisation (WHO) classification, 2007 received in Department of Pathology, Dr. Sampurnanand Medical College (Dr. SNMC), Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India, from January 2015 to December 2020 (January 2015 to September 2018:Retrospective and October 2018 to December 2020:Prospective) after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis was done for TP53 and PTEN markers in all cases of GBM. The results were then applied for statistical analysis using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0 software package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The association between age and gender with TP53 and PTEN positive cases, respectively, was analysed by using Fisher’s-exact test and the results of the same were compiled.

Results: The TP53 expression was seen in 32 cases (91.4%). The mean age of presentation of TP53 positivity was 50.3 years. Most of the TP53 cases occurred in the 41 to 50 and 61 to 70 years of age groups. In TP53 mutated cases, males were found more commonly affected as compared to females. Overall, the majority of cases (eight cases) occurred in the temporal region of the brain (25%). The relationship between age and gender with TP53 expression was found to be insignificant. PTEN expression was found absent (mutation positive) in 11 cases (32.4%). Mean age of these patients was 52.5 years. The male to female ratio was found to be 1.8:1. Regarding tumour location in the brain, most of the cases occurred unilaterally, with 45.4% (n=5) of cases occurring in the temporal region. The association between PTEN mutation with age and gender was not found to be significant.

Conclusion: The higher prevalence of TP53 expression in the population suggests distinct genetic pathways that need to be studied in detail to have a better understanding of this highly aggressive tumour. The PTEN mutation was discovered to be prevalent in the population of Western Rajasthan and needs to be studied further on a large scale. The simultaneous presence of molecular markers in GBM cases would need to be considered before initiating any gene therapy for its improved effectiveness.

Keywords

Genetic pathways, Immunohistochemical grading, Molecular markers, Nuclear staining, Targeted therapy, World Health Organisation classification 2007

The incidence of brain tumours in India ranges from 5 to 10 per 100,000 people (1),(2). High-grade gliomas, mostly grade IV gliomas, such as GBM, are common types of primary brain tumours (3). Histopathologically, glioblastoma shows high mitotic activity, cellular and nuclear pleomorphism, intravascular microthrombi, microvascular proliferation and necrosis with or without cellular pseudopallisading (4). Molecular markers play an important role in diagnosis, prognosis, and predicting therapeutic effects of treatment. These may be proteins, antigens, or might have genetic, epigenetic, or cytogenetic origins. Currently, the importance of biomarkers is being prioritised utilising various molecular approaches that may be relevant for both prognostic and diagnostic purposes. In this study, two IHC markers, namely TP53 and PTEN, were included for analysis in GBM.

TP53 expression: TP53 is a nuclear phosphoprotein which is involved in classical pathways of cellular growth and differentiation, including induction of apoptosis, instigation of Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) repair, and transient arrest of the cell cycle in the G1 phase. As such, the gene encoding TP53, is classified as a tumour suppressor gene as loss of function leads to tumour inception. In GBM, the majority of TP53 alterations are missense mutations in the DNA binding domain (DBD) limiting transcription factor activity. A mutant TP53 gene product may result in constitutive upregulation of TP53 nuclear expression with potential loss of TP53 function, gain of TP53 function with partial conservation of wild-type protein function, or dominant negative regulation (5).

PTEN expression: PTEN is a tumour suppressor gene that is involved in many signalling pathways, most notably the PI3K/Akt pathway, where it acts as a phosphatase and thus dephosphoryles PIP3, producing a PIP2-molecule and thus maintaining inactivity in the Akt pathway (6),(7),(8). PIP3 is a key regulator of the PI3K/Akt signalling pathway and acts by recruiting Akt to the membrane surface, an event critical for Akt activation. Activated Akt regulates several downstream pathways, controlling cell cycle progression, protein synthesis, survival, apoptosis, and migration (9),(10),(11). Loss of PTEN expression, through deletion, mutation, or methylation, essentially mimics activation of the Akt pathway as a result of the accumulation of PIP3, while retention of PTEN maintains Akt inactivity (9),(11),(12). Although PTEN expression is ubiquitous across all tissues, only in certain tumour types has it been shown to play a role in tumourigenesis-such as tumours of the breast, ovaries, prostate, skin, pancreas, and most notably, the brain (13),(14),(15),(16),(17),(18),(19),(20),(21),(22).

As standard medical practice in the treatment of this highly aggressive tumour yields little survival benefit, greater attention is now being paid to personalised treatment and, correspondingly, to the expression of specific molecular markers with the goal of assessing their possible therapeutic as well as prognostic significance (6),(23),(24),(25),(26). Very few molecular studies on GBM have been done in the past on Indian population (27),(28). Also, the present study was the first study of such type on GBM patients of Rajasthan, India. Hence this study was an attempt to contribute to the better management of GBM patients in the hope that these patients might achieve improved survival in the future by getting specific target therapies depending on the type of molecular defect present in their tumour. The present research was a single Institutional study which aimed to estimate the proportion of TP53 and PTEN expression in GBM patients.

Material and Methods

The present study was a ambispective (January 2015 to September 2018:Retrospective and October 2018 to December 2020:Prospective), single Institutional observational study which was done on brain tissue biopsies of histopathologically diagnosed and confirmed cases of GBM based on the WHO Classification, 2007 (4) received in the Department of Pathology, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India, from January 2015 to December 2020. The proposal for the study was reviewed thoroughly and approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee (IEC) (EC/MC/JU/2018/319) before the commencement of the study.

Inclusion criteria: All brain biopsies from January 2015 to December 2020 with a histopathological diagnosis of GBM were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Ultra small biopsies, GBM cases with single tissue block, brain biopsies with histopathological diagnosis other than GBM and GBM cases which were registered outside the above mentioned time frame were all kept under exclusion criteria.

After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, paraffin embedded tissue blocks of a total of 35 cases of histopathologically confirmed GBM from January 2015 to December 2020 were retrieved from the Department of Pathology. Epidemiological data (age and sex) for the selected cases was procured from the patient records kept in the pathology department.

Immunohistochemistry

For IHC, tissue sections of 5 μm thickness were taken on Bond Max albumin coated microscope slides. These slides were incubated first and processed further for dewaxing with ethanol and xylene. The IHC technique was applied for TP53 and PTEN expression on Leica Bond Max Immunostainer installed in the Department of Pathology using rabbit anti-human p53 Monoclonal Antibody (Clone SP5) and mouse anti-PTEN Monoclonal Antibody (Clone 6H2.1), respectively. IHC slides were mounted and examined microscopically by three histopathologists. Positive controls were taken as carcinoma breast for TP53 and endometrium for PTEN. The cases whose slides reported non uniformity in interpretation were processed twice for IHC. All the cases were reviewed thoroughly by histopathologists as per below mentioned criterias. For TP53 expression, total 35 were analysed while only 34 cases were estimated for PTEN expression 7as PTEN staining of one case was found to be non contributory (repeated twice). The results were compiled and applied for statistical analysis. Slides showing non contributory staining were not counted for statistical analysis.

Criteria for TP53 expression interpretation (29),(30): Presence of nuclear staining in ≥10% of tumour cells in most representative areas were considered positive for TP53 mutation.

Scoring criteria:

<10%-negative
10-30%-1+
31-50%-2+
>50%-3+

Criteria for PTEN expression interpretation (31): Absence of nuclear staining in entire or vast majority of tumour was considered positive for PTEN mutation whereas presence of nuclear staining either partially or in entire tumour was considered negative.

Statistical Analysis

The results were then applied for statistical analysis using SPSS 22.0 software package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) using Fisher’s-exact test.

Results

Most of the GBM cases (Table/Fig 1) occurred unilaterally, with 45.4% of cases (n=5) occurring in the temporal region.

TP53 expression: Interestingly, TP53 expression was seen in the majority of cases, i.e., 32 out of a total of 35 cases (91.4%). The mean age of presentation of TP53 positivity was 50.3 years. Most of the TP53 cases occurred in the 41 to 50 years and 61 to 70 years age groups (10 cases each). The majority of positive cases were beyond 40 years of age (n=25, 78.1%). Further, among eight cases in the age group less than 40 years, 87.5% (7 cases) showed TP53 expression, whereas it came out to be 92.6% (25 cases) in cases more than 40 years of age (27 cases). However, the association between age and TP53 positivity was not significant (Fisher’s-exact test, p-value=0.553). Further p-values of association of distinct age groups with TP53 expression were also found insignificant (Table/Fig 2). Among TP53 positive cases, 9.4% (3 cases) were showing ≤30% stained tumour cells (Grade 1), 15.6% (5 cases) were showing staining in 31-50% of tumour cells (Grade 2) while in 75% (24 cases), >50% tumour cells were found stained for TP53 (Grade 3) (Table/Fig 3),(Table/Fig 4)a-c.

The mean age of presentation in Grade 1, Grade 2 and Grade 3 were 52 years, 50.4 years, and 51.1 years respectively. Most of the cases occurred beyond 40 years of age and showed a peak age of presentation between 41-50 years of age in Grade 1 (n=2, 66.67%), while it was 41-60 years (n=4, 80%) in Grade 2. In Grade 3, most of the cases were in the 61-70 year age group (n=9, 37.5%).

In TP53 positive cases, males were found more commonly affected as compared to females in total, with a male to female ratio of 1.5:1. In Grade 1, the gender distribution (male: female) is 1:2, 4:1 in Grade 2, and 1.4:1 in Grade 3 (Table/Fig 5). Freeman-Halton extension of Fisher’s-exact test was used to see if there was a link between TP53 expression and gender for which p-value was found to be non significant (p-value=0.497).

Overall, the majority of cases (eight cases) occurred in the temporal region of the brain (25%), out of which two cases were seen in the right temporal region and six cases in the left temporal region. There was no particular preference for any one side of the brain by this tumour for TP53 expression.

PTEN expression: For PTEN expression, one case was found to be non contributory as its staining (repeated twice) was not clearly defined. Out of the rest of 34 cases, 11 (32.4%) of them were found to be negative for staining, which mean that they had a PTEN mutation (Table/Fig 6),(Table/Fig 7).

The mean age of patients showing PTEN mutation was 52.5 years. Among these, the majority of cases (76.4%) were above 40 years of age. Three (37.5%) out of eight patients under the age of 40 were found to have PTEN mutations, while this mutation was found positive in eight (30.8%) of 26 patients over the age of 40 years (Table/Fig 8). The association between PTEN mutation and age was found to be non significant (Fisher’s-exact test, p-value=1.000). The majority of the cases that tested negative for PTEN mutations were also discovered after the age of 40 age group (18 cases).

The male to female ratio in total PTEN mutation positive cases was found to be 1.8:1 (Table/Fig 9). In PTEN mutation negative cases, the male female ratio was reported as 1.3:1. The association between PTEN mutation and gender was found to be non significant (Fisher’s-exact test, p-value=0.729).

Discussion

TP53 expression: The results of TP53 positivity were interestingly found to be very similar to the study by Das A et al., who reported 96% of TP53 mutation positivity in their GBM cases (32). This study by Das A et al., was also on the Asian population and was mainly on Chinese, Malaysians, and Indians. Similar to present study, they also performed IHC as a diagnostic technique for TP53 mutation detection. The results of these studies on the Asian population are much higher than most of the previous studies in the literature on non Asian patients (32). In support of the conclusion of the study by Das A et al., it is suggested that there might be distinct genetic pathways responsible for tumourigenesis in GBM tumours of the Asian population and hence they need to be further investigated. Another reason for such variation in results might be the use of different diagnostic criteria for TP53 mutation reporting. While on the one hand, few studies reported positivity for any staining on IHC, others took >80% positivity as diagnostic criteria (32),(33),(34),(35). Such a huge variation results in heterogeneity in results. Gülten G et al., took ≥80% staining as criteria for positivity for the TP53 gene mutation and reported 12.05% positivity (33). In present study, 7/35 (20%) cases were shown ≥80% of TP53 staining. Similarly, Montgomery RM et al., examined 36 GBM cases and reported 86% positivity by taking >50% staining as criteria for TP53 staining positivity (34). These results appear to be in line with present study, which shows 68.6% of cases as positive when applying the same criteria. Thus, it is suggested that there should be a uniform standard criteria for reporting of TP53 mutations worldwide to minimise such “pseudo-variations” in TP53 reporting to avoid misinterpretation of results. Previous studies on TP53 and PTEN mutations are enlisted in (Table/Fig 10),(Table/Fig 11), respectively (27),(28),(30),(32),(33),(34),(35),(36),37],(38),(39),(40),(41),(42),(43),(44).

The M:F ratio was around 1:1 in Das A et al., study (32), while it was 1.5:1 in present study. In both studies, no significant association was noted between age, gender, and TP53 overexpression. There was no significant association found between age and TP53 expression in Montgomery RM et al., study, which was in line with present study (34).

PTEN expression: In this study, loss or deletion in the PTEN gene was considered a positive staining outcome on IHC, which was seen in 11 out of 34 cases (32.4%), which was in concordance with literature (Table/Fig 11).

In this study, the majority of PTEN mutated cases occurred above 40 years of age, which was in line with the study by Jha P et al., (28). They also reported that the mean age of GBM cases showing a PTEN mutation was older than the non mutated cases.

In a study by Srividya MR et al., on 73 GBM cases, the median age for PTEN mutation was reported to be 50.97±10.2 years, while non mutated cases of the PTEN IHC marker was 43.52±13.5 years (45). As a result, the median age of patients with PTEN homozygous deletion was significantly higher than that of patients with the retained status (p=0.019). In present study, a similar age was reported in PTEN mutated cases (52.5 years), but there was no statistically significant correlation found between age and PTEN mutation status. Furthermore, in previous studies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors were found to be effective only in cases of EGFR vIII mutations with a retained PTEN gene (34).

Limitations(s)

The principal limitation of this study was that this was a non randomised single Institutional study. Another major limitation was small sample size. Hence, the findings could be readily generalised or considered conclusive when confirmed by subsequent studies on Indian population. Moreover, limited clinical data restricted subdivision of tumours in primary and secondary glioblastoma which could have added information regarding association of TP53 and PTEN mutations to subtypes.

Conclusion

The higher prevalence of TP53 expression in present study population suggests distinct genetic pathways that need to be studied in detail to have a better understanding of this highly aggressive tumour. The PTEN mutation positivity found in present study was in concordance with the literature. Before starting gene therapy for GBM, it would be important to think about the presence of molecular markers in the same place. To develop targeted therapies against these molecular markers, it is important to know the prevalence of these markers as well as other clinical data in racially diverse GBM patients. This work is a step towards personalised treatment of GBM patients, particularly on population of Western Rajasthan, India. More such studies are needed in the future in India on a large scale, to have a better understanding of this lethal tumour for improved patient survival.

Acknowledgement

Authors are grateful for support of Multi-Disciplinary Research Unit (SNMC, Jodhpur) and Dr. Akhil Goel, Associate Professor, Department of CMFM, AIIMS, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.

References

1.
Nair M, Varghese C, Swaminathann R. Cancer: Current scenario, intervention strategies and projections for 2015. NCMH Background Papers; 2015.
2.
Yeole BB. Trends in the brain cancer incidence in India. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev. 2008;9:267-70.
3.
Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Farah P, Ondracek A, Chen Y, Wolinsky Y, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: Primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2006-2010. Neuro Oncol. 2013;15(Suppl 2):ii1-56. [crossref] [PubMed]
4.
Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Cavenee WK, Burger PC, Jouvet A, et al. The 2007 WHO classification of tumors of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol. 2007;114(2):97-109. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Tanboon J, Williams EA, Louis DN. The diagnostic use of immunohistochemical surrogates for signature molecular genetic alterations in gliomas. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2016;75:04-18. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Pitter KL, Galbán CJ, Galbán S, Tehrani OS, Saeed-Tehrani O. Perifosine and CCI 779 co-operate to induce cell death and decrease proliferation in PTEN-intact and PTEN-deficient PDGF-driven murine glioblastoma. PLoS One. 2011;6:e14545. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Scheid MP, Woodgett JR. Unravelling the activation mechanisms of protein kinase B/Akt. FEBS Lett. 2003;546:108-12. [crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Downes CP, Bennett D, McConnachie G, Leslie NR, Pass I. Antagonism of PI 3-kinase-dependent signalling pathways by the tumour suppressor protein, PTEN. Biochem Soc Trans. 2009;29:846-51. [crossref]
9.
Blanco-Aparicio C, Renner O, Leal JF, Carnero A. PTEN, more than the AKT pathway. Carcinogenesis. 2007;28:1379-86. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Navé BT, Ouwens M, Withers DJ, Alessi DR, Shepherd PR. Mammalian target of rapamycin is a direct target for protein kinase B: Identification of a convergence point for opposing effects of insulin and amino-acid deficiency on protein translation. Biochem J. 1999;344 Pt 2(Pt 2):427-31. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Sun H, Lesche R, Li DM, Liliental J, Zhang H. PTEN modulates cell cycle progression and cell survival by regulating phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5, -trisphosphate and Akt/protein kinase B signaling pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96:6199-204. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Nielsen-Preiss SM, Silva SR, Gillette JM. Role of PTEN and Akt in the regulation of growth and apoptosis in human osteoblastic cells. J Cell Biochem. 2003;90:964-75. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Steck PA, Pershouse MA, Jasser SA, Yung WK, Lin H. Identification of a candidate tumour suppressor gene, MMAC1, at chromosome 10q23.3 that is mutated in multiple advanced cancers. Nat Genet. 1997;15:356-62. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Li J, Yen C, Liaw D, Podsypanina K, Bose S. PTEN, a putative protein tyrosine phosphatase gene mutated in human brain, breast, and prostate cancer. Science. 1997;275:1943-47. [crossref] [PubMed]
15.
Teng DH, Hu R, Lin H, Davis T, Iliev D. MMAC1/PTEN mutations in primary tumor specimens and tumor cell lines. Cancer Res. 1997;57:5221-25.
16.
Link W, Rosado A, Fominaya J, Thomas JE, Carnero A. Membrane localization of all class I PI 3-kinase isoforms suppresses c-Myc-induced apoptosis in Rat1 fibroblasts via Akt. J Cell Biochem. 2005;95:979-89. [crossref] [PubMed]
17.
Parsons DW, Wang TL, Samuels Y, Bardelli A, Cummins JM. Colorectal cancer: Mutations in a signalling pathway. Nature. 2005;436:792. [crossref] [PubMed]
18.
Paramio JM, Navarro M, Segrelles C, Gómez-Casero E, Jorcano JL. PTEN tumour suppressor is linked to the cell cycle control through the retinoblastoma protein. Oncogene. 1999;18:7462-68. [crossref] [PubMed]
19.
Campbell IG, Russell SE, Choong DY, Montgomery KG, Ciavarella ML. Mutation of the PIK3CA gene in ovarian and breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2004;64:7678-81. [crossref] [PubMed]
20.
Kirkegaard T, Witton CJ, McGlynn LM, Tovey SM, Dunne B. AKT activation predicts outcome in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen. J Pathol. 2005;207:139-46. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Xing D, Orsulic S. A genetically defined mouse ovarian carcinoma model for the molecular characterization of pathway-targeted therapy and tumor resistance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:6936-6941. [crossref] [PubMed]
22.
Nakayama K, Nakayama N, Kurman RJ, Cope L, Pohl G. Sequence mutations and amplification of PIK3CA and AKT2 genes in purified ovarian serous neoplasms. Cancer Biol Ther. 2006;5:779-85. [crossref] [PubMed]
23.
Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, Weller M, Fisher B, Taphoorn MJB, et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:987-96. [crossref] [PubMed]
24.
Verhaak RG, Hoadley KA, Purdom E, Wang V, Qi Y, Wilkerson MD, et al. Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell. 2010;17:98-110. [crossref] [PubMed]
25.
Koul D. PTEN signaling pathways in glioblastoma. Cancer Biol Ther. 2008;7:1321-25. [crossref] [PubMed]
26.
Knobbe CB, Merlo A, Reifenberger G. PTEN signaling in gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2002;4:196-211. [crossref] [PubMed]
27.
Arif SH, Pandith AA, Tabasum R, Ramzan AU, Singh S, Siddiqi MA, et al. Significant effect of anti-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (Gefitinib) on overall survival of the glioblastoma multiforme patients in the backdrop of mutational status of epidermal growth factor receptor and PTEN genes. Asian J Neurosurg. 2018;13(1):46-52. [crossref] [PubMed]
28.
Jha P, Suri V, Singh G, Jha P, Purkait S, Pathak P. Characterization of molecular genetic alterations in GBMs highlights a distinctive molecular profile in young adults. Diag Mol Pathol. 2011;20:225-32. [crossref] [PubMed]
29.
Nguyen DN, Heaphy CM, de Wilde RF, Orr BA, Odia Y, Eberhart CG, et al. Molecular and morphologic correlates of the alternative lengthening of telomeres phenotype in high-grade astrocytomas. Brain Pathol. 2013;23(3):237-43. [crossref] [PubMed]
30.
Chaurasia A, Park SH, Seo JW. Immunohistochemical analysis of ATRX, IDH1 and p53 in glioblastoma and their correlations with patient survival. J Korean Med Sci. 2016;31:1208-14. [crossref] [PubMed]
31.
Kim B, Myung JK, Seo JH, Park CK, Paek SH, Kim DG, et al. The clinicopathologic values of the molecules associated with the main pathogenesis of the glioblastoma. J Neurol Sci. 2010;294(1-2):112-18. [crossref] [PubMed]
32.
Das A, Tan WL, Teo J, Smith DR. Glioblastoma multiforme in an Asian population: Evidence for a distinct genetic pathway. J Neurooncol. 2002;60(2):117-25. Doi: 10.1023/a:1020622415786. PMID: 12635658. [crossref] [PubMed]
33.
Gülten G, Yalçin N, Baltalar B, Dog? u G, Acar F, Doğ ruel Y. The importance of IDH1, ATRX and WT-1 mutations in glioblastoma. Pol J Pathol. 2020;71(2):127-37. [crossref] [PubMed]
34.
Montgomery RM, Queiroz Lde S, Rogerio F. EGFR, p53, IDH-1 and MDM2 immunohistochemical analysis in glioblastoma: Therapeutic and prognostic correlation. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2015;73(7):561-68. [crossref] [PubMed]
35.
Karnam S, Kottu R, Chowhan AK, Bodepati PC. Expression of p53 & epidermal growth factor receptor in glioblastoma. Indian J Med Res. 2017;146(6):738-45. [crossref] [PubMed]
36.
Lee KS, Choe G, Nam KH, Seo AN, Yun S, Kim KJ, et al. Immunohistochemical classification of primary and secondary glioblastomas. Korean J Pathol. 2013;47:541-48. [crossref] [PubMed]
37.
Ruano Y, Ribalta T, de Lope AR, Campos-Martín Y, Fiaño C, Pérez-Magán E, et al. Worse outcome in primary glioblastoma multiforme with concurrent epidermal growth factor receptor and p53 alteration. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;131(2):257-63. [crossref] [PubMed]
38.
Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive genomic characterization defines human glioblastoma genes and core pathways. Nature. 2008;455(7216):1061-68. [crossref] [PubMed]
39.
Simmons ML, Lamborn KR, Takahashi M, Chen P, Israel MA, Berger MS, et al. Analysis of complex relationships between age, p53, epidermal growth factor receptor, and survival in glioblastoma patients. Cancer Res. 2001;61(3):1122-28.
40.
Watanabe K, Tachibana O, Sata K, Yonekawa Y, Kleihues P, Ohgaki H. Overexpression of the EGF receptor and p53 mutations are mutually exclusive in the evolution of primary and secondary glioblastomas. Brain Pathol. 1996;6:217-23. [crossref] [PubMed]
41.
Kyritsis AP, Bondy ML, Hess KR, Cunningham JE, Zhu D, Amos CJ, et al. Prognostic significance of p53 immunoreactivity in patients with glioma. Clin Cancer Res. 1995;1(12):1617-22.
42.
Ng HK, Lo SY, Huang DP, Poon WS. Paraffin section p53 protein immunohistochemistry in neuroectodermal tumors. Pathology. 1994;26(1):01-05. [crossref] [PubMed]
43.
Gan HK, Cvrljevic AN, Johns TG. The epidermal growth factor receptor variant III (EGFRvIII): Where wild things are altered. FEBS J. 2013;280(21):5350-70. [crossref] [PubMed]
44.
Carico C, Nuño M, Mukherjee D, Elramsisy A, Dantis J. Loss of PTEN is not associated with poor survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients of the Temozolomide Era. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(3):e 33684. [crossref] [PubMed]
45.
Srividya MR, Thota B, Shailaja BC, Arivazhagan A, Thennarasu K, Chandramouli BA, et al. Homozygous 10q23/PTEN deletion and its impact on outcome in glioblastoma: A prospective translational study on a uniformly treated cohort of adult patients. Neuropathology. 2011;31:376-83. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/57495.16710

Date of Submission: May 07, 2022
Date of Peer Review: May 26, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Jul 21, 2022
Date of Publishing: Aug 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: Funded by Department of Health Research (DHR),
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: May 09, 2022
• Manual Googling: Jun 22, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Jul 22, 2022 (17%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com