Background Glioblastoma (GBM) lacks effective therapies for recurrent disease. Unlike cancers with successful fusion-targeted treatments (e.g., BCR-ABL1 in CML), the incidence and therapeutic potential of gene fusions in GBM remain unclear. We analyzed a large genomic database to define fusion frequency and molecular associations. Methods 4800 IDH-wildtype GBM samples (WHO 2021) underwent NextGen DNA sequencing (592-gene panel/whole exome) and Whole Transcriptome Sequencing for fusions at Caris Life Sciences. Fisher-Exact/Chi-Square tests, adjusted by Benjamini-Hochberg (q < 0.05), assessed significance. Results Pathogenic fusions occurred in 428 (8.9%) samples, primarily FGFR3 (37%, n = 159; FGFR3:TACC3, n = 134), MET (21%, n = 92), and EGFR (20%, n = 87). Pathogenic or likely pathogenic fusions included NTRK2 (n = 27), PDGFRA (n = 23), ROS1 (n = 14), and BRAF (n = 10). Fusion-positive tumors had higher MET (7.5% vs. 0.7%), FGFR3 (5% vs. 0.2%), CDK4 (17% vs. 11%), and MDM2 (12% vs. 7.5%) amplifications, but lower EGFR mutations (6.1% vs. 18%), amplifications (6.1% vs. 18%), and EGFRvIII (11.9% vs. 22.5%) (all q < 0.05). Median survival was 16.6 months (fusion-positive) vs. 15.5 months (fusion-negative) (p = 0.043). Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-treated fusion-positive patients (n = 37) showed no significant survival benefit (18.4 vs. 16.5 months, p = 0.971). Conclusions Approximately 9% of GBMs harbor targetable fusions, with five genes (FGFR3, MET, EGFR, NTRK2, PDGFRA) comprising 8%. These findings support multi-arm clinical trials to evaluate targeted therapies, potentially improving outcomes for molecularly defined GBM subgroups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aulakh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: