PATH-59. Race-Based Mutational Profiles and Survival Outcomes in Glioblastoma

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary malignant brain tumor in adults and exhibits extensive molecular heterogeneity. Racial and ethnic differences in GBM mutational profiles may contribute to disparities in outcomes and treatment responses. We aimed to identify genomic and survival differences among African American (AA), Hispanic (H), and Non- Hispanic White (NHW) patients that could impact survival outcomes. We retrospectively analyzed next-generation sequencing (NGS) and clinical data from 114 GBM patients diagnosed at the University of Illinois Hospital (27 AA, 23 H, 64 NHW). NGS data were available for 83 patients (20 AA, 14 H, 49 NHW), 90% of whom were sequenced with the same 161-gene, 51-fusion, in-house panel. Point mutations, copy number changes, and structural variants were stratified by race. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate for survival characteristics, adjusting for age, gender, MGMT status, extent of resection, and disease burden. Median overall survival (OS) differed significantly by race (p = 0.03): H patients had the longest OS (22 months), followed by AA (14 months) and NHW (10 months). Male sex was an independent negative prognostic factor in NHW patients (HR 3.15, 95% CI 1.37–7.59, p = 0.008), and multifocal disease was associated with worse outcomes in H (HR 22.7, 95% CI 0.73–547.3, p = 0.045) and NHW (HR 3.23, 95% CI 1.07–8.69, p = 0.025) cohorts. Copy number variants and mutations that fit into canonical gliomagenesis pathways, such as RTK, CDK/Rb, and p53/MDM, were comparable. Race-specific patterns emerged within non- canonical genes grouped as “Other”, which included point mutations in SLX4 in AA (9%), TERT in H (15%), and BRCA/FANC in NHW patients (10%/8%). These findings reveal both shared and distinct genomic features of GBM by race and highlight the need for inclusive research to support precision oncology and reduce disparities in care.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.