Comparative study of IDH1 mutations in gliomas by high resolution melting analysis, immunohistochemistry and direct DNA sequencing.

Patients with glioblastomas with a specific mutation in the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) gene have a better prognosis than those with gliomas with wild‑type IDH1. IDH1 analysis has become part of the standard diagnostic procedure and a promising tool used for stratification in clinical trials. The present study aimed to compare high resolution melting (HRM) analysis, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and direct DNA sequencing for the detection of IDH mutations in gliomas. Fifty‑one formalin‑fixed paraffin‑embedded tumor samples were selected. For the HRM analysis and direct DNA sequencing, DNA was extracted from the tissues. For IHC, sections were stained with an anti‑IDH1‑R132H specific antibody. The HRM analysis method identified 33 cases of IDH1 gene mutations, and all mutations occurred at the R132H site. There were 33 cases of IDH1 gene mutations found by IHC, which was consistent with that identified using the HRM analysis method. However, only 30 IDH1 samples were confirmed by sequencing, in which mutations occurred at the IDH1 exon 4 R132H site. No mutation was detected in the other three of these 33 cases (two grade II oligodendroglioma and one grade II diffuse astrocytoma) by sequencing, while IHC was positive for IDH1‑R132H. The results showed that the mutation detection rate was not identified to be significantly different (P=0.250) when determined by the HRM analysis method or by direct DNA sequencing, as the concordant rate between the two methods was high (κ=0.866). The HRM analysis method in glioma IDH1 gene mutation detection has advantages of high sensitivity, good repeatability, simple operation and accurate results. It provides a novel method for detecting mutations of the IDH1 gene in paraffin embedded tissue samples of clinical glioma. Related to a small amount of sample, there was no evidence showing that HRM analysis method is superior to IHC. Direct DNA sequencing, HRM analysis and IHC results were consistent; however, HRM and IHC are more sensitive than direct DNA sequencing in identifying the IDH1‑R132H mutation.