Given the list of all-star pathologists and neuro-oncologists behind this paper (including Andreas von Deimling, David Louis, Wolfgang Wick, Michael Weller, Roger Stupp, Monika Hegi, Martin van den Bent, Michael Platten, and many more), this work will very likely get translated into actual changes of the grading system for IDH-mutant astrocytomas.
"Thus a genetic approach to taxonomy would favor a term such as “high-grade A IDHmut” rather than the current term of GBM-IDHmut." "One possible solution, which we have considered implementing in Heidelberg, would be to restrict classification to the term A[stroctyoma] IDHmut and then adapt grading according to molecular lesions, thereby omitting the term GBM-IDHmut. The term “glioblastoma” would be reserved for those histologically defined glioblastomas lacking IDH mutation or not having had adequate (not otherwise specified, NOS) or diagnostic (not elsewhere classified, NEC) work-ups"
Nice to finally see the above quotes in print, this has been my opinion for years.
This is an excellent study. My only criticism is that hypermutated tumors with very high mutational load were not evaluated as a distinct group. This is different than the high or low copy number variant load (CNVL) considered in the paper. Mutational load was only mentioned once, in the discussion:
"An interesting parameter emerging from our analysis was CNVL [copy number variant load]. A proportion higher than 350 Mb either lost or gained in the areas covered by the methylation arrays correlated with poorer OS. Previously, the mutational load has been shown to correlate with tumor grade in IDH-mutant glioma [9]. While our data more reflect genomic instability and those data rely on an accumulation of mutations they also support a quantitative approach to tumor grading."





