Effect of Extent of Resection and Adjuvant Radiation on Recurrence of BRAF versus β-Catenin–Mutated Craniopharyngioma: A Single Institutional Case Series

Abstract

Objectives

The two histologic subtypes of craniopharyngiomas (CPs), papillary and adamantinomatous, harbor mutually exclusive mutations of BRAF V600E and CTNNB1, respectively. Studies suggest that subtotal resection (STR) plus adjuvant radiation therapy (XRT) may result in similar progression-free survival (PFS) as gross total resection (GTR). We hypothesized that STR ± XRT and GTR result in similar PFS for both BRAF and β-catenin–mutated CPs.

Design

Patients who were surgically treated for a primary CP between 2001 and 2023 at a single institution were included. Immunohistochemical studies were performed retrospectively using BRAF and β-catenin antibodies. Patients with missing immunohistochemistry (IHC) diagnosis were excluded. Differences in PFS for STR ± XRT and GTR groups were assessed with a log-rank test, stratified by BRAF and β-catenin IHC status.

Results

A total of 77 patients with CP were screened. IHC data were available for 50 patients; 20 had a BRAF mutation, and 30 had a β-catenin mutation. Among BRAF patients, 11 underwent GTR; 9 had STR, and 5 had adjuvant XRT. Among β-catenin patients, 14 underwent GTR; 16 had STR, and 6 had adjuvant XRT. For BRAF patients with GTR, the median PFS was not reached; for BRAF patients with STR ± XRT, the median PFS was 150 days (p < 0.01, log-rank test). For β-catenin patients with GTR, the median PFS was 1,813 days; for β-catenin patients with STR ± XRT, the median PFS was not reached (p = 0.80, log-tank test).

Conclusions

Both GTR and STR ± XRT seemed to offer similar PFS outcomes only for patients with β-catenin–mutated CP. For patients with BRAF-mutated CP, a greater extent of resection was significantly associated with prolonged PFS.

Keywords

craniopharyngioma - BRAF - β-catenin

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 02. April 2024

Angenommen: 03. September 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
01. Oktober 2024

• References

• 1 Müller HL. The diagnosis and treatment of craniopharyngioma. Neuroendocrinology 2020; 110 (9–10): 753-766
• 2 Hong CS, Omay SB. The role of surgical approaches in the multi-modal management of adult craniopharyngiomas. Curr Oncol 2022; 29 (03) 1408-1421
• 3 Asha MJ, Oswari S, Takami H, Velasquez C, Almeida JP, Gentili F. Craniopharyngiomas: challenges and controversies. World Neurosurg 2020; 142: 593-600
• 4 Fouda MA, Scott RM, Marcus KJ. et al. Sixty years single institutional experience with pediatric craniopharyngioma: between the past and the future. Childs Nerv Syst 2020; 36 (02) 291-296
• 5 Merchant TE, Kiehna EN, Sanford RA. et al. Craniopharyngioma: the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital experience 1984-2001. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 53 (03) 533-542
• 6 Wang G, Zhang X, Feng M, Guo F. Comparing survival outcomes of gross total resection and subtotal resection with radiotherapy for craniopharyngioma: a meta-analysis. J Surg Res 2018; 226: 131-139
• 7 Louis DN, Perry A, Wesseling P. et al. The 2021 WHO classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Neuro-oncol 2021; 23 (08) 1231-1251
• 8 Brastianos PK, Taylor-Weiner A, Manley PE. et al. Exome sequencing identifies BRAF mutations in papillary craniopharyngiomas. Nat Genet 2014; 46 (02) 161-165
• 9 Adamson TE, Wiestler OD, Kleihues P, Yaşargil MG. Correlation of clinical and pathological features in surgically treated craniopharyngiomas. J Neurosurg 1990; 73 (01) 12-17
• 10 Crotty TB, Scheithauer BW, Young Jr WF. et al. Papillary craniopharyngioma: a clinicopathological study of 48 cases. J Neurosurg 1995; 83 (02) 206-214
• 11 Malgulwar PB, Nambirajan A, Pathak P. et al. Study of β-catenin and BRAF alterations in adamantinomatous and papillary craniopharyngiomas: mutation analysis with immunohistochemical correlation in 54 cases. J Neurooncol 2017; 133 (03) 487-495
• 12 Larkin SJ, Preda V, Karavitaki N, Grossman A, Ansorge O. BRAF V600E mutations are characteristic for papillary craniopharyngioma and may coexist with CTNNB1-mutated adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma. Acta Neuropathol 2014; 127 (06) 927-929
• 13 Hölsken A, Sill M, Merkle J. et al. Adamantinomatous and papillary craniopharyngiomas are characterized by distinct epigenomic as well as mutational and transcriptomic profiles. Acta Neuropathol Commun 2016; 4: 20
• 14 Xu SS, Wang LM, Zhao LH. et al. Implication of BRAF V600E and CTNNB1 gene mutations in the pathological classification of craniopharyngioma [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi 2019; 48 (09) 682-687
• 15 Omay SB, Chen YN, Almeida JP. et al. Do craniopharyngioma molecular signatures correlate with clinical characteristics?. J Neurosurg 2018; 128 (05) 1473-1478
• 16 Yue Q, Yu Y, Shi Z. et al. Prediction of BRAF mutation status of craniopharyngioma using magnetic resonance imaging features. J Neurosurg 2018; 129 (01) 27-34
• 17 Sartoretti-Schefer S, Wichmann W, Aguzzi A, Valavanis A. MR differentiation of adamantinous and squamous-papillary craniopharyngiomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1997; 18 (01) 77-87
• 18 Lee IH, Zan E, Bell WR, Burger PC, Sung H, Yousem DM. Craniopharyngiomas : radiological differentiation of two types. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2016; 59 (05) 466-470
• 19 Chen X, Tong Y, Shi Z. et al. Noninvasive molecular diagnosis of craniopharyngioma with MRI-based radiomics approach. BMC Neurol 2019; 19 (01) 6
• 20 Bobeff EJ, Mathios D, Mistry AA. et al. Predictors of extent of resection and recurrence following endoscopic endonasal resection of craniopharyngioma. J Neurosurg 2023; 139 (05) 1235-1246
• 21 Koutourousiou M, Gardner PA, Fernandez-Miranda JC, Tyler-Kabara EC, Wang EW, Snyderman CH. Endoscopic endonasal surgery for craniopharyngiomas: surgical outcome in 64 patients. J Neurosurg 2013; 119 (05) 1194-1207
• 22 Cavallo LM, Frank G, Cappabianca P. et al. The endoscopic endonasal approach for the management of craniopharyngiomas: a series of 103 patients. J Neurosurg 2014; 121 (01) 100-113
• 23 Bishokarma S, Shrestha S, Ranabhat K. et al. Outcome of surgical resection of craniopharyngioma:single center 12 years' experience. Kathmandu Univ Med J 2018; 16 (64) 328-332 (KUMJ)
• 24 Lei C, Chuzhong L, Chunhui L. et al. Approach selection and outcomes of craniopharyngioma resection: a single-institute study. Neurosurg Rev 2021; 44 (03) 1737-1746
• 25 Dandurand C, Sepehry AA, Asadi Lari MH, Akagami R, Gooderham P. Adult craniopharyngioma: case series, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Neurosurgery 2018; 83 (04) 631-641
• 26 Grewal MR, Spielman DB, Safi C. et al. Gross total versus subtotal surgical resection in the management of craniopharyngiomas. Allergy Rhinol (Providence) 2020; 11: 2152656720964158
• 27 Sughrue ME, Yang I, Kane AJ. et al. Endocrinologic, neurologic, and visual morbidity after treatment for craniopharyngioma. J Neurooncol 2011; 101 (03) 463-476
• 28 Godil SS, Tosi U, Gerges M. et al. Long-term tumor control after endoscopic endonasal resection of craniopharyngiomas: comparison of gross-total resection versus subtotal resection with radiation therapy. J Neurosurg 2021; 136 (05) 1347-1355
• 29 Yang I, Sughrue ME, Rutkowski MJ. et al. Craniopharyngioma: a comparison of tumor control with various treatment strategies. Neurosurg Focus 2010; 28 (04) E5
• 30 Brastianos PK, Twohy E, Geyer S. et al. BRAF-MEK inhibition in newly diagnosed papillary craniopharyngiomas. N Engl J Med 2023; 389 (02) 118-126
• 31 Heinzerling L, Eigentler TK, Fluck M. et al. Tolerability of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations: adverse event evaluation and management. ESMO Open 2019; 4 (03) e000491