Conclusions
Both IHC supplemented by FISH and NanoString are robust methods for molecular subgrouping, albeit with few disadvantages. IHC cannot differentiate between Groups 3 and 4, while NanoString cannot classify older-archived tumors, and is not available at most centres. Thus, both the methods complement each other and can be used in concert for high confidence allotment of molecular subgroups in clinical practice.
Methods
Ninety-five cases of MB with adequate tissue were included. Molecular subgrouping was performed by IHC for β-catenin, GAB1 and YAP1; FISH for MYC amplification, and sequencing for CTNNB1, and by NanoString Assay on the same set of MBs. A subset of cases was subjected to 850k DNA methylation array.
Results
IHC + FISH classified MBs into 15.8% WNT, 16.8% SHH, and 67.4% non-WNT/non-SHH subgroups; with MYC amplification identified in 20.3% cases of non-WNT/non-SHH. NanoString successfully classified 91.6% MBs into 25.3% WNT, 17.2% SHH, 23% Group 3 and 34.5% Group 4. However, NanoString assay failure was seen in eight cases, all of which were > 8-years-old formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks. Concordant subgroup assignment was noted in 88.5% cases, while subgroup switching was seen in 11.5% cases. Both methods showed prognostic correlation. Methylation profiling performed on discordant cases revealed 1 out of 4 extra WNT identified by NanoString to be WNT, others aligned with IHC subgroups; extra SHH by NanoString turned out to be SHH by methylation. Conclusions: Both IHC supplemented by FISH and NanoString are robust methods for molecular subgrouping, albeit with few disadvantages. IHC cannot differentiate between Groups 3 and 4, while NanoString cannot classify older-archived tumors, and is not available at most centres. Thus, both the methods complement each other and can be used in concert for high confidence allotment of molecular subgroups in clinical practice.