Next Article in Journal
SBXception: A Shallower and Broader Xception Architecture for Efficient Classification of Skin Lesions
Next Article in Special Issue
Grade 2, 3 and Dedifferentiated Chondrosarcomas: A Comparative Study of Isocitrate Dehydrogenase-Mutant and Wild-Type Tumors with Implications for Prognosis and Therapy
Previous Article in Journal
Advancing Cancer Therapy Predictions with Patient-Derived Organoid Models of Metastatic Breast Cancer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 15
Issue 14
10.3390/cancers15143603
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

IDH Mutations in Chondrosarcoma: Case Closed or Not?

by
Sanne Venneker
and
Judith V. M. G. Bovée
*
Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2023, 15(14), 3603; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15143603
Submission received: 19 May 2023 / Revised: 29 June 2023 / Accepted: 10 July 2023 / Published: 13 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Latest Research in Cartilaginous Neoplasms)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Chondrosarcomas are cartilage tumours that often harbour a mutation in one of the isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) genes. IDH mutations are important drivers at the beginning of cartilage tumour development, but their role in later stages remains unclear. However, other IDH mutant tumour types do show an influence of this mutation on patient outcomes and therapies that specifically kill these IDH mutant tumour cells. Factors that could explain this discrepancy in the role of IDH mutations are differences in tumour type, elevated oncometabolite levels, the type of model used in preclinical studies (natural vs. introduced IDH mutation), and additional (epi)genetic alterations. The latter influence the downstream biological effects of an IDH mutation, and recent studies have indeed identified subgroups within IDH wildtype and mutant chondrosarcomas. Future studies should build upon these subgroups to improve the identification of effective treatments and biomarkers that predict which patients will benefit from these therapies.

Abstract

Chondrosarcomas are malignant cartilage-producing tumours that frequently harbour isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and -2 (IDH) gene mutations. Several studies have confirmed that these mutations are key players in the early stages of cartilage tumour development, but their role in later stages remains ambiguous. The prognostic value of IDH mutations remains unclear and preclinical studies have not identified effective treatment modalities (in)directly targeting these mutations. In contrast, the IDH mutation status is a prognostic factor in other cancers, and IDH mutant inhibitors as well as therapeutic strategies targeting the underlying vulnerabilities induced by IDH mutations seem effective in these tumour types. This discrepancy in findings might be ascribed to a difference in tumour type, elevated D-2-hydroxyglutarate levels, and the type of in vitro model (endogenous vs. genetically modified) used in preclinical studies. Moreover, recent studies suggest that the (epi)genetic landscape in which the IDH mutation functions is an important factor to consider when investigating potential therapeutic strategies or patient outcomes. These findings imply that the dichotomy between IDH wildtype and mutant is too simplistic and additional subgroups indeed exist within chondrosarcoma. Future studies should focus on the identification, characterisation, and tailoring of treatments towards these biological subgroups within IDH wildtype and mutant chondrosarcoma.

1. Introduction

Chondrosarcomas are malignant cartilage-producing tumours that account for 20% of all malignant bone tumours [1,2]. Enchondromas are considered the benign precursor lesions of chondrosarcoma, but progression towards malignant tumours is rarely seen (<1%) outside the non-hereditary syndromes (i.e., Ollier disease and Maffucci syndrome) that cause multiple cartilaginous neoplasms (enchondromatosis) [3,4]. Chondrosarcomas arise predominantly in the third to sixth decades of life and can affect the long as well as the flat bones, especially the femur, humerus, pelvis, and ribs, and occasionally the spine or base of the skull. Pathological characteristics divide chondrosarcoma into several subtypes, including conventional chondrosarcoma (85%), dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma (10%), and rare subtypes that include mesenchymal, clear cell, and periosteal chondrosarcoma (5%). Based on the anatomical location, conventional chondrosarcoma can be further subdivided into central (i.e., in the medulla of the bone) and peripheral (i.e., at the surface of the bone) conventional chondrosarcoma (85% and 15%, respectively) [1,2].
Histological grading is defined by, among other factors, the mitotic count, the presence of spindle-shaped cells, cellularity, and the matrix production of the tumour, and it is the most important factor to predict overall patient survival and metastatic potential. Patients with well-differentiated tumours (i.e., atypical cartilaginous tumour (ACT) and grade I) have an overall 10-year survival rate of 88–95% and rarely show metastasis formation [1]. However, high-grade tumours (i.e., grade II and III) show increased metastatic potential (10–30% and 32–71%, respectively) and the overall 10-year survival rate of these patients is severely decreased (58–86% and 26–55%, respectively) [2]. Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma is a high-grade subtype of chondrosarcoma with the bimorphic histological appearance of a conventional chondrosarcoma juxtaposed with a high-grade anaplastic sarcoma [5]. It has a dismal prognosis, with 5-year overall survival of only 7–24%.
The worse prognosis of both high-grade conventional and dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma can be partially ascribed to the limited number of available treatment options. Chondrosarcomas are intrinsically resistant towards chemo- and radiotherapy and targeted therapeutic options are still lacking, leaving surgery as the only curative treatment option [6]. Hence, there is an urgent need to develop novel targeted therapeutic strategies, especially for patients with metastasised and/or unresectable high-grade or dedifferentiated chondrosarcomas.
In the last decade, recurrent heterozygous hotspot mutations in the arginine residues of the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and −2 (IDH1 and IDH2) genes (p.R132 and p.R140/p.R172, respectively) were identified in enchondroma (87%), central conventional chondrosarcoma (~50%), and dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma (>80%) [7,8,9,10]. The high frequency of IDH1 and IDH2 (collectively referred to as IDH) mutations in benign cartilage tumours indicates that these mutations occur early in tumourigenesis, suggesting that IDH mutations have an important driver role in the formation of cartilage tumours. Indeed, the introduction of an IDH mutation induces enchondroma-like lesions in mice [11]. Furthermore, the IDH mutation or its produced oncometabolite stimulate chondrogenic differentiation while inhibiting the osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells, which are the presumed cells of origin of cartilage tumours [12,13]. Despite their significant role in the early stages of tumour development, the prognostic value of the IDH mutation in chondrosarcoma seems controversial and (pre)clinical studies that have focused on the direct and indirect targeting of the IDH mutation have not yielded novel treatment strategies. This review provides an overview of the current knowledge of the role of IDH mutations in chondrosarcoma and highlights similarities as well as differences between tumour types that frequently harbour IDH mutations. Additionally, it will be discussed whether the IDH mutation should still be considered as a promising therapeutic target or not.

2. Frequency and Prognostic Value of IDH1 and IDH2 Mutations

IDH mutations are also frequently observed in other tumour types, such as acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), glioma, and cholangiocarcinoma [14]. Interestingly, the most common variant differs between the above-stated tumour types (Table 1). Cartilage tumours and cholangiocarcinoma mainly have IDH1 p.R132C variants (~60%), glioma predominantly harbours IDH1 p.R132H mutations (~90%), and AML often has IDH2 p.R140Q mutations (~40%) [15,16]. None of the variants are exclusively observed in one tumour type, suggesting that different point mutations can have a similar effect on tumourigenesis, although the level of the oncometabolite D-2-hydroxyglutarate (D-2-HG) produced by these variants differs [17,18,19]. The prognostic value of IDH mutations in these tumour types is also diverse (Table 1), and only glioma patients have a clear favourable outcome when their tumour harbours an IDH mutation [20,21,22,23]. Studies that were performed to determine the prognostic value of IDH mutations in chondrosarcoma show contradictory results. While it was previously reported that IDH mutations do not predict outcomes [15], other studies showed either a worse [24] or better [25] prognosis for IDH mutant (IDHMUT) chondrosarcoma patients. The three patient cohorts were similar in size (n = 70 to 80) and median age (50 to 60 years), but the chondrosarcoma subtype inclusion (conventional versus addition of dedifferentiated and mesenchymal cases) and median follow-up time (4.3 versus ≥10 years) differed, which might explain the discrepancy in results. Another factor might be the type of technique used to assign patients to the IDHMUT subgroup. For instance, Sanger sequencing is not sensitive enough to detect mutations when present in less than <30% of the sequenced PCR product, leading to false-negative results in samples with a low IDHMUT variant allele frequency or tumour cell percentage and thereby the assignment of IDHMUT patients to the IDH wildtype (IDHWT) subgroup. Despite the lack of prognostic value, the high occurrence rate of IDH mutations in all of these tumour types suggests that they have an important role in driving tumourigenesis, already in the early stages of tumour development.

3. Oncogenic Activities of IDH Mutations

Both IDH enzymes function in the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, where they convert isocitrate into α-ketoglutarate (α-KG) and CO2. Mutated IDH enzymes acquire a neomorphic function, leading to the additional conversion of α-KG into the oncometabolite D-2-HG [39]. The IDH1 p.R132C variant is one of the most efficient D-2-HG producers, while both IDH1 p.R132H and IDH2 p.R140Q produce lower levels of the oncometabolite [17,18,19]. As certain variants are more frequently observed in specific tumour types (Table 1) [15,16], this could suggest that chondrosarcoma and cholangiocarcinoma rely on high D-2-HG levels, while glioma and AML depend on relatively lower levels of the oncometabolite.
Due to the high structural similarity between α-KG and its antagonist D-2-HG, the oncometabolite is able to competitively bind α-KG-dependent enzymes, leading to the overall inhibition of this class of enzymes [40,41]. The inhibition of α-KG-dependent enzymes leads to widespread changes in the epigenomes and metabolomes of cells and affects DNA repair and cellular growth signalling pathways (Figure 1) [42,43]. For instance, the D-2-HG-mediated inhibition of α-KG-dependent DNA demethylases (family of TET enzymes, including TET1/2) and histone demethylases (family of Jumonji enzymes, including KDMA4A/B) leads to an overall DNA hypermethylation phenotype, as well as an aberrant histone methylation phenotype in IDH mutant tumours. IDHMUT enchondromas and chondrosarcomas are indeed characterised by a CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP)-positive status, and DNA hypermethylation is present in primary IDHMUT chondrosarcomas [7,44,45]. The family of Jumonji enzymes is also involved in the regulation of the Mechanistic Target Of Rapamycin Kinase (mTOR) signalling pathway, as well as DNA repair via the homologous recombination pathway. Moreover, IDHMUT enzymes have a reduced ability to produce NADPH and consume high levels of NADPH to produce D-2-HG, resulting in severely reduced overall NADPH levels. This deficiency does not only cause metabolic stress but will also lead to an increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS), making IDHMUT tumours more vulnerable to DNA damage. Besides the induction of metabolic stress, IDHMUT tumours also undergo metabolic rewiring, including alterations in metabolites of the TCA cycle, a reduced dependency on glycolysis, and alterations in lipid metabolism. Additionally, D-2-HG-mediated inhibition of the prolyl hydroxylase domain proteins (EGLN1 and -2) leads to the upregulation of hypoxia-inducible factors (e.g., HIF1α), resulting in a metabolic switch to maintain oxygen homeostasis. D-2-HG also affects collagen maturation via the inhibition of proline and lysine hydroxylases (P4HA1-3 and PLOD1-3), leading to an impaired extracellular matrix structure. Thus, IDH mutations have a wide variety of downstream biological effects; therefore, these mutations are considered as the drivers in multiple tumour types.

4. Inhibition of the IDHMUT Protein

To counteract the oncogenic activity of the IDH mutations, several inhibitors targeting either IDH1 p.R132 variants (e.g., ivosidenib) or IDH2 p.R140 variants (e.g., enasidenib) have been developed over the past couple of years [46]. In vitro studies and clinical trials show that AML patients could benefit from IDHMUT protein inhibitors [26,32], although some patients develop resistance against these inhibitors over time. This acquired resistance is multi-factorial and can be caused by second-site mutations in IDHMUT genes to prevent the binding of IDHMUT protein inhibitors, IDHMUT isoform switching to circumvent the effect of IDHMUT protein inhibitors, or novel acquired mutations in genes encoding for receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) [33,34,35]. Direct inhibition of IDHMUT proteins seems less promising for other tumour types that frequently harbour an IDH mutation (Table 1) [27,28,36,37]. Especially in chondrosarcoma, the effect of IDHMUT protein inhibitors in in vitro assays seems controversial. While several studies have shown that IDH1MUT protein inhibition does not affect the tumourigenic properties of chondrosarcoma cell lines [27,29], other groups have shown that IDH1MUT protein inhibition causes a decreased proliferation rate in chondrosarcoma cell lines at higher doses or with a different compound [30,31]. Recent results from a phase I clinical trial with the IDH1MUT inhibitor ivosidenib showed that prolonged disease control (i.e., progression-free survival of ~6 months) could be achieved in a subset of patients with advanced chondrosarcoma, predominantly in patients with a minimal number of co-occurring mutations [38]. Together, these results suggest that a subset of chondrosarcomas might have become independent of their IDH mutation over time and that the underlying biological changes either have become static or are driven by other mutations that were acquired later during tumour development.

5. Synthetic Lethal Interactions with the IDH Mutation

As IDHMUT protein inhibitors showed limited efficacy in in vitro assays and clinical trials or acquired resistance was observed (Table 1), a large number of in vitro studies were performed to determine whether directly targeting the downstream biological effects of IDH mutations would be more promising (Table 2). Indeed, multiple synthetic lethal interactions with the IDH mutation were reported for AML and glioma, including radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and agents that target poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), B-cell lymphoma 2 (Bcl-2) family members, Bromodomain and Extra-Terminal Motif (BET) proteins, DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs), mTOR, Nicotinamide Phosphoribosyltransferase (NAMPT), and glutaminase [27,28,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60]. However, chondrosarcoma cell lines are variably sensitive to a selection of these therapies, but the effect seems irrespective of the IDH mutation status, as IDHWT chondrosarcoma cell lines show similar treatment responses [61,62,63,64,65,66,67].
These contradictory findings on synthetic lethal interactions with the IDH mutation might be ascribed to different factors. First, the cell of origin and the tumour microenvironment (e.g., cartilaginous matrix formation and hypoxia in chondrosarcoma) of the distinct tumour types that frequently harbour an IDH mutation are highly different and could therefore influence the role that IDH mutations play in tumourigenesis. Second, the level of the D-2-HG oncometabolite may also influence the downstream biological effects of IDH mutations. The most common IDH variants in AML and glioma both produce relatively low D-2-HG levels, whilst the most common point mutation in both cholangiocarcinoma and chondrosarcoma produces relatively high levels of the oncometabolite (Table 1) [17,18,19]. It was recently shown that a lower level of DNA hypermethylation was observed for the IDH1 p.R132H variant compared to non-p.R132H variants, irrespective of tumour type [16]. Lastly, the type of in vitro model (endogenous vs. artificially created) might influence whether synthetic lethal interactions with the IDH mutation are present or not. The introduction of an IDH mutation in a glioma model leads to reduced glutamine and glutamate levels, but this change in TCA cycle metabolites is not present when endogenous IDHWT and IDHMUT glioma models are compared [68]. Most synthetic lethal interactions with the IDH mutation were indeed identified in generic cancer cell lines with an introduced IDHMUT (Table 2). AML and glioma cell lines with an endogenous IDHMUT are scarce, but the utilised chondrosarcoma cell lines do harbour endogenous IDH mutations and this difference in model type could explain why synthetic lethal interactions with the IDH mutation are absent in the chondrosarcoma in vitro studies. As IDH mutations occur early during tumourigenesis, especially in chondrosarcoma, artificial models with an introduced IDH mutation may not be representative of the role that IDH mutations normally play in tumourigenesis. These studies also introduced the IDH mutation in generic cancer cell lines that are easy to transfect (e.g., HeLa, HCT116, and U2OS cells), and these cell lines do not represent the tumour types in which IDH mutations frequently occur. Moreover, most studies generated models that overexpressed the IDHMUT protein, whilst the balanced expression of IDHWT and IDHMUT is needed to retain efficient D-2-HG production [69]. Together, these considerations emphasise that the tumour type, the IDHMUT variant, and the type of in vitro model should be taken into account when studying synthetic lethal interactions with the IDH mutation, and that the underlying vulnerabilities may highly differ between tumour types that frequently harbour an IDH mutation.

6. Putting the IDH Mutation into Context to Define Underlying Vulnerabilities

In addition to these factors, it was recently shown that the (epi)genetic landscape in which IDHMUT and IDHWT are embedded is another important aspect to take into consideration when defining underlying vulnerabilities in tumour types that frequently harbour an IDH mutation. Studies on AML and glioma have shown that the genetic and epigenetic landscape in which IDHWT and IDHMUT function is highly heterogenous and thereby influences the therapy response and patient outcome [70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81]. For instance, mutations in TP53 and ATRX are the underlying denominator in defining which IDHWT and IDHMUT gliomas respond to radiotherapy [70]; the overexpression of BCAT1 in IDHWT AML leads to an IDHMUT-like DNA hypermethylation phenotype [71], and additional mutations in DNMT3A cause reduced levels of DNA hypermethylation in IDHMUT AML samples [74]. Furthermore, co-occurring (epi)genetic alterations such as CIMP status [78], 1p19q deletions [80], CDKN2A deletions [78,79], MET amplifications [78], PDGFRA amplifications [79], and TERT mutations [80] influence overall survival in IDHMUT glioma patients. Moreover, IDHMUT AML patients with a co-occurring NPM1 mutation show overall a better response to chemotherapy with or without venetoclax [81]. The influence of co-occurring (epi)genetic alterations may also explain why distinct IDHMUT tumour types differ in therapy sensitivity and underlines the need to use endogenous IDHMUT models, as generic cancer cell lines with an introduced IDH mutation do not represent the (epi)genetic landscape in which IDH mutations naturally exist. Thus, the IDH mutation status does not solely define the underlying vulnerabilities, which is in line with previous findings for chondrosarcoma [61,62,63,64,65,66,67], suggesting that a dichotomy between IDHWT and IDHMUT is too simplistic.
Besides IDH mutations, chondrosarcomas frequently harbour mutations in TP53, CDKN2A/B, COL2A1, YEATS2, NRAS, and TERT [82,83,84,85,86]. However, the rest of the previously observed co-occurring mutations seem to follow a more random pattern and are present in less than 10% of the chondrosarcomas [25,83,84,87], leading to a highly heterogeneous genetic landscape in which IDHWT and IDHMUT function in chondrosarcoma. Furthermore, IDHMUT chondrosarcomas are characterised by a global hypermethylation phenotype that changes with increasing histological grade [44,45], and, based on methylation profiles alone, several chondrosarcoma subgroups could be defined, even within IDHWT and IDHMUT tumours [88]. Moreover, using chondrosarcoma transcriptome and methylome data, it was previously shown that different molecular subtypes (i.e., high mitotic state, 14q32 miRNA cluster loss of expression, and IDHMUT-induced DNA hypermethylation) exist, and that these are associated with patient outcomes [89]. Moreover, (epi)genetic alterations in the TERT gene (i.e., hypermethylation and promotor mutations) affect the survival probability of IDH1MUT chondrosarcoma patients, whilst this association is absent in IDHWT and IDH2MUT patients [87]. Together, these findings show that the IDH mutation status does not solely define the treatment response or outcome in chondrosarcoma patients, suggesting that the dichotomy between IDHWT and IDHMUT is also too simplistic for chondrosarcoma.

7. Conclusions and Future Directions

Although IDH mutations occur frequently in chondrosarcoma, their prognostic value as well as therapeutic potential seem both ambiguous in chondrosarcoma (Table 1). This is in line with the hypothesis that some chondrosarcomas become independent of their IDH mutations over time and that additional mutations take over the driver role in later stages of tumour development. Nevertheless, other tumour types that frequently harbour an IDH mutation do show the prognostic value of the IDH mutation (glioma) and response to IDHMUT protein inhibitors (AML) (Table 1). Additional mutations in RTKs could contribute to secondary resistance to IDHMUT protein inhibitors [35], which complements the idea that other mutations can take over the driver role of IDH mutations. As chondrosarcomas are usually diagnosed relatively late due to minimal symptoms in the early stages of tumour development, these additional mutations might have already occurred and may hamper the efficacy of IDHMUT protein inhibitors. This is in line with the fact that an increase in progression-free survival after treatment with an IDHMUT protein inhibitor (ivosidenib) was predominantly observed in chondrosarcoma patients with a minimal number of co-occurring mutations [38]. Thus, the role of IDH mutations most likely differs between distinct tumour types as well as stages of tumour development. Future studies should investigate whether (the number of) additional mutations could be a potential predictive biomarker for the response to IDHMUT inhibition in chondrosarcoma and other IDHMUT tumour types.
This discrepancy in the role of IDH mutations is also reflected in the preclinical studies that have investigated underlying vulnerabilities in IDHMUT tumour types (Table 2). The contradicting results on synthetic lethal interactions with the IDH mutation between tumour types might be ascribed to a difference in cell of origin, co-occurring (epi)genetic alterations, D-2-HG levels, or the type of in vitro model. The latter could introduce variance between IDHMUT tumour types that does not naturally exist, as these artificially created IDHMUT most likely do not reflect the early onset of IDH mutations or the (epi)genetic landscape in which these mutations are normally embedded. The endogenous IDHWT and IDHMUT chondrosarcoma cell lines harbour additional genetic alterations (unpublished data), including CDKN2A loss, and were derived from patients with high-grade (II and III) and differentiated tumours, meaning that these cell lines are representative models for the role of IDH mutations in more advanced tumour stages. This might explain why these cell lines showed a limited response to IDHMUT inhibitors and showed a variable response to treatments that were identified in other in vitro studies that utilised artificially created models. Future preclinical studies should therefore exercise caution regarding the use of artificially created IDHMUT models and should thoroughly characterise the (epi)genetic landscape in which the IDH mutation was introduced, as well as confirming their findings in models that harbour an endogenous IDH mutation.
Nevertheless, these artificially created IDHMUT models could provide valuable insight into the influence of the (epi)genetic landscape on the downstream biological effects of IDH mutations and thus on underlying therapeutic vulnerabilities. Future studies should expand on the identified subgroups and define novel (epi)genetic aberrations that distinguish subgroups within IDHWT and IDHMUT chondrosarcomas, followed by the identification of tailored targeted therapeutic strategies towards these subgroups. This will improve not only the identification of effective treatment modalities but also the design of clinical trials for high-grade chondrosarcoma patients (e.g., umbrella trial design) and the inclusion of patients in basket trials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, S.V. and J.V.M.G.B.; funding acquisition, J.V.M.G.B.; supervision, J.V.M.G.B.; writing—original draft, S.V. and J.V.M.G.B.; writing—review and editing, S.V. and J.V.M.G.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (ZON-MW VICI 170.055 to J.V.M.G.B.).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bovée, J.V.M.G.; Bloem, J.L.; Flanagan, A.M.; Nielsen, G.P.; Yoshida, A. Central Atypical Cartilaginous Tumour/Chondrosarcoma, Grade 1. In WHO Classification of Tumours—Soft Tissue and Bone Tumours; WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board, Ed.; IARC Press: Lyon, France, 2020; pp. 370–372. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bovée, J.V.M.G.; Bloem, J.L.; Flanagan, A.M.; Nielsen, G.P.; Yoshida, A. Central Chondrosarcoma, Grades 2 and 3. In WHO Classification of Tumours—Soft Tissue and Bone Tumours; WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board, Ed.; IARC Press: Lyon, France, 2020; pp. 375–378. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bovée, J.V.M.G.; Bloem, J.L.; Flanagan, A.M.; Nielsen, G.P.; Yoshida, A. Enchondroma. In WHO Classification of Tumours—Soft Tissue and Bone Tumours; WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board, Ed.; IARC Press: Lyon, France, 2020; pp. 353–355. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bovée, J.V.M.G.; Alman, B.A. Enchondromatosis. In WHO Classification of Tumours—Soft Tissue and Bone Tumours; WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board, Ed.; IARC Press: Lyon, France, 2020; pp. 506–509. [Google Scholar]
  5. Inwards, C.Y.; Bloem, J.L.; Hogendoorn, P.C.W. Dedifferentiated Chondrosarcoma. In WHO Classification of Tumours—Soft Tissue and Bone Tumours; WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board, Ed.; IARC Press: Lyon, France, 2020; pp. 388–390. [Google Scholar]
  6. Gelderblom, H.; Hogendoorn, P.C.W.; Dijkstra, S.D.; van Rijswijk, C.S.; Krol, A.D.; Taminiau, A.H.M.; Bovee, J.V.M.G. The Clinical Approach Towards Chondrosarcoma. Oncologist 2008, 13, 320–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Pansuriya, T.C.; Van Eijk, R.; D’Adamo, P.; Van Ruler, M.A.J.H.; Kuijjer, M.L.; Oosting, J.; Cleton-Jansen, A.M.; Van Oosterwijk, J.G.; Verbeke, S.L.J.; Meijer, D.; et al. Somatic Mosaic IDH1 and IDH2 Mutations Are Associated with Enchondroma and Spindle Cell Hemangioma in Ollier Disease and Maffucci Syndrome. Nat. Genet. 2011, 43, 1256–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Amary, M.F.; Damato, S.; Halai, D.; Eskandarpour, M.; Berisha, F.; Bonar, F.; McCarthy, S.; Fantin, V.R.; Straley, K.S.; Lobo, S.; et al. Ollier Disease and Maffucci Syndrome Are Caused by Somatic Mosaic Mutations of IDH1 and IDH2. Nat. Genet. 2011, 43, 1262–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Amary, M.F.; Bacsi, K.; Maggiani, F.; Damato, S.; Halai, D.; Berisha, F.; Pollock, R.; O’Donnell, P.; Grigoriadis, A.; Diss, T.; et al. IDH1 and IDH2 Mutations Are Frequent Events in Central Chondrosarcoma and Central and Periosteal Chondromas but Not in Other Mesenchymal Tumours. J. Pathol. 2011, 224, 334–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Chen, S.; Fritchie, K.; Wei, S.; Ali, N.; Curless, K.; Shen, T.; Brini, A.T.; Latif, F.; Sumathi, V.; Siegal, G.P.; et al. Diagnostic Utility of IDH1/2 Mutations to Distinguish Dedifferentiated Chondrosarcoma from Undifferentiated Pleomorphic Sarcoma of Bone. Hum. Pathol. 2017, 65, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Hirata, M.; Sasaki, M.; Cairns, R.A.; Inoue, S.; Puviindran, V.; Li, W.Y.; Snow, B.E.; Jones, L.D.; Wei, Q.; Sato, S.; et al. Mutant IDH Is Sufficient to Initiate Enchondromatosis in Mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 2829–2834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Suijker, J.; Baelde, H.J.; Roelofs, H.; Cleton-Jansen, A.M.; Bovée, J.V.M.G. The Oncometabolite D-2-Hydroxyglutarate Induced by Mutant IDH1 or -2 Blocks Osteoblast Differentiation in Vitro and in Vivo. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 14832–14842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Jin, Y.; Elalaf, H.; Watanabe, M.; Tamaki, S.; Hineno, S.; Matsunaga, K.; Woltjen, K.; Kobayashi, Y.; Nagata, S.; Ikeya, M.; et al. Mutant Idh1 Dysregulates the Differentiation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Association with Gene-Specific Histone Modifications to Cartilage- and Bone-Related Genes. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0131998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Clark, O.; Yen, K.; Mellinghoff, I.K. Molecular Pathways: Isocitrate Dehydrogenase Mutations in Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016, 22, 1837–1842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Cleven, A.H.G.; Suijker, J.; Agrogiannis, G.; Briaire-de Bruijn, I.H.; Frizzell, N.; Hoekstra, A.S.; Wijers-Koster, P.M.; Cleton-Jansen, A.-M.; Bovée, J.V.M.G. IDH1 or -2 Mutations Do Not Predict Outcome and Do Not Cause Loss of 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine or Altered Histone Modifications in Central Chondrosarcomas. Clin. Sarcoma Res. 2017, 7, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Tesileanu, C.M.S.; Vallentgoed, W.R.; Sanson, M.; Taal, W.; Clement, P.M.; Wick, W.; Brandes, A.A.; Baurain, J.F.; Chinot, O.L.; Wheeler, H.; et al. Non-IDH1-R132H IDH1/2 Mutations Are Associated with Increased DNA Methylation and Improved Survival in Astrocytomas, Compared to IDH1-R132H Mutations. Acta Neuropathol. 2021, 141, 945–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ward, P.S.; Lu, C.; Cross, J.R.; Abdel-Wahab, O.; Levine, R.L.; Schwartz, G.K.; Thompson, C.B. The Potential for Isocitrate Dehydrogenase Mutations to Produce 2-Hydroxyglutarate Depends on Allele Specificity and Subcellular Compartmentalization. J. Biol. Chem. 2013, 288, 3804–3815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Pusch, S.; Schweizer, L.; Beck, A.C.; Lehmler, J.M.; Weissert, S.; Balss, J.; Miller, A.K.; von Deimling, A. D-2-Hydroxyglutarate Producing Neo-Enzymatic Activity Inversely Correlates with Frequency of the Type of Isocitrate Dehydrogenase 1 Mutations Found in Glioma. Acta Neuropathol. Commun. 2014, 2, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Molenaar, R.J.; Radivoyevitch, T.; Maciejewski, J.P.; van Noorden, C.J.F.; Bleeker, F.E. The Driver and Passenger Effects of Isocitrate Dehydrogenase 1 and 2 Mutations in Oncogenesis and Survival Prolongation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2014, 1846, 326–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jin, J.; Hu, C.; Yu, M.; Chen, F.; Ye, L.; Yin, X.; Zhuang, Z.; Tong, H. Prognostic Value of Isocitrate Dehydrogenase Mutations in Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Retrospective Cohort Study and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e100206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Dinardo, C.D.; Ravandi, F.; Agresta, S.; Konopleva, M.; Takahashi, K.; Kadia, T.; Routbort, M.; Patel, K.P.; Brandt, M.; Pierce, S.; et al. Characteristics, Clinical Outcome, and Prognostic Significance of IDH Mutations in AML. Am. J. Hematol. 2015, 90, 732–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Xia, L.; Wu, B.; Fu, Z.; Feng, F.; Qiao, E.; Li, Q.; Sun, C.; Ge, M. Prognostic Role of IDH Mutations in Gliomas: A Meta-Analysis of 55 Observational Studies. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 17354–17365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Goyal, L.; Govindan, A.; Sheth, R.A.; Nardi, V.; Blaszkowsky, L.S.; Faris, J.E.; Clark, J.W.; Ryan, D.P.; Kwak, E.L.; Allen, J.N.; et al. Prognosis and Clinicopathologic Features of Patients with Advanced Stage Isocitrate Dehydrogenase (IDH) Mutant and IDH Wild-Type Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. Oncologist 2015, 20, 1019–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Lugowska, I.; Teterycz, P.; Mikula, M.; Kulecka, M.; Kluska, A.; Balabas, A.; Piatkowska, M.; Wagrodzki, M.; Pienkowski, A.; Rutkowski, P.; et al. IDH1/2 Mutations Predict Shorter Survival in Chondrosarcoma. J. Cancer 2018, 9, 998–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Zhu, G.G.; Nafa, K.; Agaram, N.; Zehir, A.; Benayed, R.; Sadowska, J.; Borsu, L.; Kelly, C.; Tap, W.D.; Fabbri, N.; et al. Genomic Profiling Identifies Association of IDH1/IDH2 Mutation with Longer Relapse-Free and Metastasis-Free Survival in High-Grade Chondrosarcoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020, 26, 419–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Wang, F.; Travins, J.; DeLaBarre, B.; Penard-Lacronique, V.; Schalm, S.; Hansen, E.; Straley, K.; Kernytsky, A.; Liu, W.; Gliser, C.; et al. Targeted Inhibition of Mutant IDH2 in Leukemia Cells Induces Cellular Differentiation. Science 2013, 340, 622–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Tateishi, K.; Wakimoto, H.; Iafrate, A.J.; Tanaka, S.; Loebel, F.; Lelic, N.; Wiederschain, D.; Bedel, O.; Deng, G.; Zhang, B.; et al. Extreme Vulnerability of IDH1 Mutant Cancers to NAD+ Depletion. Cancer Cell 2015, 28, 773–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Fujiwara, H.; Tateishi, K.; Kato, H.; Nakatsuka, T.; Yamamoto, K.; Tanaka, Y.; Ijichi, H.; Takahara, N.; Mizuno, S.; Kogure, H.; et al. Isocitrate Dehydrogenase 1 Mutation Sensitizes Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma to the BET Inhibitor JQ1. Cancer Sci. 2018, 109, 3602–3610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Suijker, J.; Oosting, J.; Koornneef, A.; Struys, E.A.; Salomons, G.S.; Schaap, F.G.; Waaijer, C.J.F.; Wijers-Koster, P.M.; Briaire-de Bruijn, I.H.; Haazen, L.; et al. Inhibition of Mutant IDH1 Decreases D-2-HG Levels without Affecting Tumorigenic Properties of Chondrosarcoma Cell Lines. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 12505–12519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Li, L.; Paz, A.C.; Wilky, B.A.; Johnson, B.; Galoian, K.; Rosenberg, A.; Hu, G.; Tinoco, G.; Bodamer, O.; Trent, J.C. Treatment with a Small Molecule Mutant IDH1 Inhibitor Suppresses Tumorigenic Activity and Decreases Production of the Oncometabolite 2-Hydroxyglutarate in Human Chondrosarcoma Cells. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0133813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nakagawa, M.; Nakatani, F.; Matsunaga, H.; Seki, T.; Endo, M.; Ogawara, Y.; Machida, Y.; Katsumoto, T.; Yamagata, K.; Hattori, A.; et al. Selective Inhibition of Mutant IDH1 by DS-1001b Ameliorates Aberrant Histone Modifications and Impairs Tumor Activity in Chondrosarcoma. Oncogene 2019, 38, 6835–6849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. DiNardo, C.D.; Stein, E.M.; de Botton, S.; Roboz, G.J.; Altman, J.K.; Mims, A.S.; Swords, R.; Collins, R.H.; Mannis, G.N.; Pollyea, D.A.; et al. Durable Remissions with Ivosidenib in IDH1 -Mutated Relapsed or Refractory AML. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, 2386–2398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Intlekofer, A.M.; Shih, A.H.; Wang, B.; Nazir, A.; Rustenburg, A.S.; Albanese, S.K.; Patel, M.; Famulare, C.; Correa, F.M.; Takemoto, N.; et al. Acquired Resistance to IDH Inhibition through Trans or Cis Dimer-Interface Mutations. Nature 2018, 559, 125–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Harding, J.J.; Lowery, M.A.; Shih, A.H.; Schvartzman, J.M.; Hou, S.; Famulare, C.; Patel, M.; Roshal, M.; Do, R.K.; Zehir, A.; et al. Isoform Switching as a Mechanism of Acquired Resistance to Mutant Isocitrate Dehydrogenase Inhibition. Cancer Discov. 2018, 8, 1540–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Choe, S.; Wang, H.; DiNardo, C.D.; Stein, E.M.; de Botton, S.; Roboz, G.J.; Altman, J.K.; Mims, A.S.; Watts, J.M.; Pollyea, D.A.; et al. Molecular Mechanisms Mediating Relapse Following Ivosidenib Monotherapy in IDH1-Mutant Relapsed or Refractory AML. Blood Adv. 2020, 4, 1894–1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mellinghoff, I.K.; Ellingson, B.M.; Touat, M.; Maher, E.; De La Fuente, M.I.; Holdhoff, M.; Cote, G.M.; Burris, H.; Janku, F.; Young, R.J.; et al. Ivosidenib in Isocitrate Dehydrogenase 1-Mutated Advanced Glioma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 3398–3406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Abou-Alfa, G.K.; Macarulla, T.; Javle, M.M.; Kelley, R.K.; Lubner, S.J.; Adeva, J.; Cleary, J.M.; Catenacci, D.V.; Borad, M.J.; Bridgewater, J.; et al. Ivosidenib in IDH1-Mutant, Chemotherapy-Refractory Cholangiocarcinoma (ClarIDHy): A Multicentre, Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 3 Study. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 796–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tap, W.D.; Villalobos, V.M.; Cote, G.M.; Burris, H.; Janku, F.; Mir, O.; Beeram, M.; Wagner, A.J.; Jiang, L.; Wu, B.; et al. Phase I Study of the Mutant IDH1 Inhibitor Ivosidenib: Safety and Clinical Activity in Patients with Advanced Chondrosarcoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 1693–1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dang, L.; White, D.W.; Gross, S.; Bennett, B.D.; Bittinger, M.A.; Driggers, E.M.; Fantin, V.R.; Jang, H.G.; Jin, S.; Keenan, M.C.; et al. Cancer-Associated IDH1 Mutations Produce 2-Hydroxyglutarate. Nature 2009, 462, 739–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Xu, W.; Yang, H.; Liu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Wang, P.; Kim, S.H.; Ito, S.; Yang, C.; Wang, P.; Xiao, M.T.; et al. Oncometabolite 2-Hydroxyglutarate Is a Competitive Inhibitor of α-Ketoglutarate-Dependent Dioxygenases. Cancer Cell 2011, 19, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Chowdhury, R.; Yeoh, K.K.; Tian, Y.M.; Hillringhaus, L.; Bagg, E.A.; Rose, N.R.; Leung, I.K.H.; Li, X.S.; Woon, E.C.Y.; Yang, M.; et al. The Oncometabolite 2-Hydroxyglutarate Inhibits Histone Lysine Demethylases. EMBO Rep. 2011, 12, 463–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Gagné, L.M.; Boulay, K.; Topisirovic, I.; Huot, M.É.; Mallette, F.A. Oncogenic Activities of IDH1/2 Mutations: From Epigenetics to Cellular Signaling. Trends Cell Biol. 2017, 27, 738–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hvinden, I.C.; Cadoux-Hudson, T.; Schofield, C.J.; McCullagh, J.S.O. Metabolic Adaptations in Cancers Expressing Isocitrate Dehydrogenase Mutations. Cell Rep. Med. 2021, 2, 100469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Venneker, S.; Kruisselbrink, A.B.; Baranski, Z.; Palubeckaite, I.; Briaire-de Bruijn, I.H.; Oosting, J.; French, P.J.; Danen, E.H.J.; Bovée, J.V.M.G. Beyond the Influence of IDH Mutations: Exploring Epigenetic Vulnerabilities in Chondrosarcoma. Cancers 2020, 12, 3589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Guilhamon, P.; Eskandarpour, M.; Halai, D.; Wilson, G.A.; Feber, A.; Teschendorff, A.E.; Gomez, V.; Hergovich, A.; Tirabosco, R.; Fernanda Amary, M.; et al. Meta-Analysis of IDH-Mutant Cancers Identifies EBF1 as an Interaction Partner for TET2. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 2166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Liu, S.; Cadoux-Hudson, T.; Schofield, C.J. Isocitrate Dehydrogenase Variants in Cancer—Cellular Consequences and Therapeutic Opportunities. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2020, 57, 122–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Molenaar, R.J.; Radivoyevitch, T.; Nagata, Y.; Khurshed, M.; Przychodzen, B.; Makishima, H.; Xu, M.; Bleeker, F.E.; Wilmink, J.W.; Carraway, H.E.; et al. Idh1/2 Mutations Sensitize Acute Myeloid Leukemia to Parp Inhibition and This Is Reversed by Idh1/2-Mutant Inhibitors. Clin. Cancer Res. 2018, 24, 1705–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Li, S.; Chou, A.P.; Chen, W.; Chen, R.; Deng, Y.; Phillips, H.S.; Selfridge, J.; Zurayk, M.; Lou, J.J.; Everson, R.G.; et al. Overexpression of Isocitrate Dehydrogenase Mutant Proteins Renders Glioma Cells More Sensitive to Radiation. Neuro. Oncol. 2013, 15, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kessler, J.; Güttler, A.; Wichmann, H.; Rot, S.; Kappler, M.; Bache, M.; Vordermark, D. IDH1R132H Mutation Causes a Less Aggressive Phenotype and Radiosensitizes Human Malignant Glioma Cells Independent of the Oxygenation Status. Radiother. Oncol. 2015, 116, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Lu, Y.; Kwintkiewicz, J.; Liu, Y.; Tech, K.; Frady, L.N.; Su, Y.T.; Bautista, W.; Moon, S.I.; MacDonald, J.; Ewend, M.G.; et al. Chemosensitivity of IDH1-Mutated Gliomas Due to an Impairment in PARP1-Mediated DNA Repair. Cancer Res. 2017, 77, 1709–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Tateishi, K.; Higuchi, F.; Miller, J.J.; Koerner, M.V.A.; Lelic, N.; Shankar, G.M.; Tanaka, S.; Fisher, D.E.; Batchelor, T.T.; Iafrate, A.J.; et al. The Alkylating Chemotherapeutic Temozolomide Induces Metabolic Stress in IDH1-Mutant Cancers and Potentiates NAD+depletion-Mediated Cytotoxicity. Cancer Res. 2017, 77, 4102–4115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Sulkowski, P.L.; Corso, C.D.; Robinson, N.D.; Scanlon, S.E.; Purshouse, K.R.; Bai, H.; Liu, Y.; Sundaram, R.K.; Hegan, D.C.; Fons, N.R.; et al. 2-Hydroxyglutarate Produced by Neomorphic IDH Mutations Suppresses Homologous Recombination and Induces PARP Inhibitor Sensitivity. Sci. Transl. Med. 2017, 9, eaal2463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Wang, Y.; Wild, A.T.; Turcan, S.; Wu, W.H.; Sigel, C.; Klimstra, D.S.; Ma, X.; Gong, Y.; Holland, E.C.; Huse, J.T.; et al. Targeting Therapeutic Vulnerabilities with PARP Inhibition and Radiation in IDH-Mutant Gliomas and Cholangiocarcinomas. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eaaz3221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Chan, S.M.; Thomas, D.; Corces-Zimmerman, M.R.; Xavy, S.; Rastogi, S.; Hong, W.J.; Zhao, F.; Medeiros, B.C.; Tyvoll, D.A.; Majeti, R. Isocitrate Dehydrogenase 1 and 2 Mutations Induce BCL-2 Dependence in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Nat. Med. 2015, 21, 178–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Karpel-Massler, G.; Ishida, C.T.; Bianchetti, E.; Zhang, Y.; Shu, C.; Tsujiuchi, T.; Banu, M.A.; Garcia, F.; Roth, K.A.; Bruce, J.N.; et al. Induction of Synthetic Lethality in IDH1-Mutated Gliomas through Inhibition of Bcl-XL. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Chen, C.; Liu, Y.; Lu, C.; Cross, J.R.; Morris IV, J.P.; Shroff, A.S.; Ward, P.S.; Bradner, J.E.; Thompson, C.; Lowe, S.W. Cancer-Associated IDH2 Mutants Drive an Acute Myeloid Leukemia That Is Susceptible to Brd4 Inhibition. Genes Dev. 2013, 27, 1974–1985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Turcan, S.; Fabius, A.W.; Borodovsky, A.; Pedraza, A.; Brennan, C.; Huse, J.; Viale, A.; Riggins, G.J.; Chan, T.A. Efficient Induction of Differentiation and Growth Inhibition in IDH1 Mutant Glioma Cells by the DNMT Inhibitor Decitabine. Oncotarget 2013, 4, 1729–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Batsios, G.; Viswanath, P.; Subramani, E.; Najac, C.; Gillespie, A.M.; Santos, R.D.; Molloy, A.R.; Pieper, R.O.; Ronen, S.M. PI3K/MTOR Inhibition of IDH1 Mutant Glioma Leads to Reduced 2HG Production That Is Associated with Increased Survival. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 10521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Emadi, A.; Jun, S.A.; Tsukamoto, T.; Fathi, A.T.; Minden, M.D.; Dang, C. V Inhibition of Glutaminase Selectively Suppresses the Growth of Primary Acute Myeloid Leukemia Cells with IDH Mutations. Exp. Hematol. 2014, 42, 247–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Seltzer, M.J.; Bennett, B.D.; Joshi, A.D.; Gao, P.; Thomas, A.G.; Ferraris, D.V.; Tsukamoto, T.; Rojas, C.J.; Slusher, B.S.; Rabinowitz, J.D.; et al. Inhibition of Glutaminase Preferentially Slows Growth of Glioma Cells with Mutant IDH1. Cancer Res. 2010, 70, 8981–8987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. de Jong, Y.; Ingola, M.; Briaire-de Bruijn, I.H.; Kruisselbrink, A.B.; Venneker, S.; Palubeckaite, I.; Heijs, B.P.A.M.; Cleton-Jansen, A.-M.; Haas, R.L.M.; Bovée, J.V.M.G. Radiotherapy Resistance in Chondrosarcoma Cells; a Possible Correlation with Alterations in Cell Cycle Related Genes. Clin. Sarcoma Res. 2019, 9, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. de Jong, Y.; Monderer, D.; Brandinelli, E.; Monchanin, M.; van den Akker, B.E.; van Oosterwijk, J.G.; Blay, J.Y.; Dutour, A.; Bovée, J.V.M.G. Bcl-Xl as the Most Promising Bcl-2 Family Member in Targeted Treatment of Chondrosarcoma. Oncogenesis 2018, 7, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Addie, R.D.; de Jong, Y.; Alberti, G.; Kruisselbrink, A.B.; Que, I.; Baelde, H.; Bovée, J.V.M.G. Exploration of the Chondrosarcoma Metabolome; the MTOR Pathway as an Important pro-Survival Pathway. J. Bone Oncol. 2019, 15, 100222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Peterse, E.F.P.; van den Akker, B.E.W.M.; Niessen, B.; Oosting, J.; Suijker, J.; de Jong, Y.; Danen, E.H.J.; Cleton-Jansen, A.-M.; Bovée, J.V.M.G. NAD Synthesis Pathway Interference Is a Viable Therapeutic Strategy for Chondrosarcoma. Mol. Cancer Res. 2017, 15, 1714–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Peterse, E.F.P.; Niessen, B.; Addie, R.D.; De Jong, Y.; Cleven, A.H.G.; Kruisselbrink, A.B.; Van Den Akker, B.E.W.M.; Molenaar, R.J.; Cleton-Jansen, A.M.; Bovée, J.V.M.G. Targeting Glutaminolysis in Chondrosarcoma in Context of the IDH1/2 Mutation. Br. J. Cancer 2018, 118, 1074–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Venneker, S.; Kruisselbrink, A.B.; Briaire-de Bruijn, I.H.; de Jong, Y.; van Wijnen, A.J.; Danen, E.H.J.; Bovée, J.V.M.G. Inhibition of PARP Sensitizes Chondrosarcoma Cell Lines to Chemo- and Radiotherapy Irrespective of the IDH1 or IDH2 Mutation Status. Cancers 2019, 11, 1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Palubeckaitė, I.; Venneker, S.; Van Den Akker, B.E.W.M.; Briaire-de Bruijn, I.H.; Bovée, J.V.M.G. Does PARP Inhibition Sensitize Chondrosarcoma Cell Lines to Chemotherapy or Radiotherapy? Results From a Three-Dimensional Spheroid Cell Model. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2022, 481, 608–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Garrett, M.; Sperry, J.; Braas, D.; Yan, W.; Le, T.M.; Mottahedeh, J.; Ludwig, K.; Eskin, A.; Qin, Y.; Levy, R.; et al. Metabolic Characterization of Isocitrate Dehydrogenase (IDH) Mutant and IDH Wildtype Gliomaspheres Uncovers Cell Type-Specific Vulnerabilities. Cancer Metab. 2018, 6, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Jin, G.; Reitman, Z.J.; Duncan, C.G.; Spasojevic, I.; Gooden, D.M.; Rasheed, B.A.; Yang, R.; Lopez, G.Y.; He, Y.; McLendon, R.E.; et al. Disruption of Wild-Type IDH1 Suppresses D-2-Hydroxyglutarate Production in IDH1-Mutated Gliomas. Cancer Res. 2013, 73, 496–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Núñez, F.J.; Mendez, F.M.; Kadiyala, P.; Alghamri, M.S.; Savelieff, M.G.; Garcia-Fabiani, M.B.; Haase, S.; Koschmann, C.; Calinescu, A.-A.; Kamran, N.; et al. IDH1-R132H Acts as a Tumor Suppressor in Glioma via Epigenetic up-Regulation of the DNA Damage Response. Sci. Transl. Med. 2019, 11, eaaq1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Raffel, S.; Falcone, M.; Kneisel, N.; Hansson, J.; Wang, W.; Lutz, C.; Bullinger, L.; Poschet, G.; Nonnenmacher, Y.; Barnert, A.; et al. BCAT1 Restricts AkG Levels in AML Stem Cells Leading to IDHmut-like DNA Hypermethylation. Nature 2017, 551, 384–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Yang, Z.; Hu, N.; Wang, W.; Hu, W.; Zhou, S.; Shi, J.; Li, M.; Jing, Z.; Chen, C.; Zhang, X.; et al. Loss of FBXW7 Correlates with Increased IDH1 Expression in Glioma and Enhances IDH1-Mutant Cancer Cell Sensitivity to Radiation. Cancer Res. 2022, 82, 497–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hu, C.; Wang, K.; Damon, C.; Fu, Y.; Ma, T.; Kratz, L.; Lal, B.; Ying, M.; Xia, S.; Cahill, D.P.; et al. ATRX Loss Promotes Immunosuppressive Mechanisms in IDH1 Mutant Glioma. Neuro. Oncol. 2021, noab292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wilson, E.R.; Helton, N.M.; Heath, S.E.; Fulton, R.S.; Payton, J.E.; Welch, J.S.; Walter, M.J.; Westervelt, P.; DiPersio, J.F.; Link, D.C.; et al. Focal Disruption of DNA Methylation Dynamics at Enhancers in IDH-Mutant AML Cells. Leukemia 2022, 36, 935–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lee, S.D.; Song, J.; LeBlanc, V.G.; Marra, M.A. Integrative Multi-Omic Analysis Reveals Neurodevelopmental Gene Dysregulation in CIC-Knockout and IDH1-Mutant Cells. J. Pathol. 2022, 256, 297–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Middeke, J.M.; Metzeler, K.H.; Röllig, C.; Krämer, M.; Eckardt, J.-N.; Stasik, S.; Greif, P.A.; Spiekermann, K.; Rothenberg-Thurley, M.; Krug, U.; et al. Differential Impact of IDH1/2 Mutational Subclasses on Outcome in Adult AML: Results from a Large Multicenter Study. Blood Adv. 2022, 6, 1394–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Duchmann, M.; Micol, J.B.; Duployez, N.; Raffoux, E.; Thomas, X.; Marolleau, J.P.; Braun, T.; Adès, L.; Chantepie, S.; Lemasle, E.; et al. Prognostic Significance of Concurrent Gene Mutations in Intensively Treated Patients with IDH-Mutated AML: An ALFA Study. Blood 2021, 137, 2827–2837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Li, K.K.-W.; Shi, Z.-F.; Malta, T.M.; Chan, A.K.-Y.; Cheng, S.; Kwan, J.S.H.; Yang, R.R.; Poon, W.S.; Mao, Y.; Noushmehr, H.; et al. Identification of Subsets of IDH-Mutant Glioblastomas with Distinct Epigenetic and Copy Number Alterations and Stratified Clinical Risks. Neuro-Oncol. Adv. 2019, 1, vdz015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Yang, R.R.; Shi, Z.F.; Zhang, Z.; Chan, A.K.Y.; Aibaidula, A.; Wang, W.-W.; Kwan, J.S.H.; Poon, W.S.; Chen, H.; Li, W.-C.; et al. IDH Mutant Lower Grade (WHO Grades II/III) Astrocytomas Can Be Stratified for Risk by CDKN2A, CDK4 and PDGFRA Copy Number Alterations. Brain Pathol. 2020, 30, 541–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chan, A.K.Y.; Shi, Z.F.; Li, K.K.W.; Wang, W.W.; Chen, H.; Chung, N.Y.F.; Chan, D.T.M.; Poon, W.S.; Loong, H.H.F.; Liu, X.Z.; et al. Combinations of Single-Gene Biomarkers Can Precisely Stratify 1,028 Adult Gliomas for Prognostication. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 839302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lachowiez, C.A.; Reville, P.K.; Kantarjian, H.; Jabbour, E.; Borthakur, G.; Daver, N.; Issa, G.; Furudate, K.; Tanaka, T.; Pierce, S.; et al. Contemporary Outcomes in IDH-mutated AML: The Impact of Co-occurring NPM1 Mutations and Venetoclax-based Treatment. Am. J. Hematol. 2022, 97, 1443–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Schrage, Y.M.; Lam, S.; Jochemsen, A.G.; Cleton-Jansen, A.M.; Taminiau, A.H.M.; Hogendoorn, P.C.W.; Bovée, J.V.M.G. Central Chondrosarcoma Progression Is Associated with PRb Pathway Alterations: CDK4 down-Regulation and P16 Overexpression Inhibit Cell Growth in Vitro. J. Cell Mol. Med. 2009, 13, 2843–2852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Tarpey, P.S.; Behjati, S.; Cooke, S.L.; Van Loo, P.; Wedge, D.C.; Pillay, N.; Marshall, J.; Meara, S.O.; Davies, H.; Zainal, S.N.; et al. Frequent Mutation of the Major Cartilage Collagen Gene COL2A1 in Chondrosarcoma. Nat. Genet. 2013, 45, 923–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Totoki, Y.; Yoshida, A.; Hosoda, F.; Nakamura, H.; Hama, N.; Ogura, K.; Yoshida, A.; Fujiwara, T.; Arai, Y.; Toguchida, J.; et al. Unique Mutation Portraits and Frequent COL2A1 Gene Alteration in Chondrosarcoma. Genome Res. 2014, 24, 1411–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Zhang, Y.X.; Van Oosterwijk, J.G.; Sicinska, E.; Moss, S.; Remillard, S.P.; Van Wezel, T.; Bühnemann, C.; Hassan, A.B.; Demetri, G.D.; Bovée, J.V.M.G.; et al. Functional Profiling of Receptor Tyrosine Kinases and Downstream Signaling in Human Chondrosarcomas Identifies Pathways for Rational Targeted Therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2013, 19, 3796–3807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Yang, C.; Seger, N.; Hesla, A.C.; Tsagkozis, P.; Larsson, O.; Lin, Y.; Haglund, F. TERT Promoter Mutation Is an Objective Clinical Marker for Disease Progression in Chondrosarcoma. Mod. Pathol. 2021, 34, 2020–2027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Cross, W.; Lyskjær, I.; Lesluyes, T.; Hargreaves, S.; Strobl, A.-C.; Davies, C.; Waise, S.; Hames-Fathi, S.; Oukrif, D.; Ye, H.; et al. A Genetic Model for Central Chondrosarcoma Evolution Correlates with Patient Outcome. Genome Med. 2022, 14, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Koelsche, C.; Schrimpf, D.; Stichel, D.; Sill, M.; Sahm, F.; Reuss, D.E.; Blattner, M.; Worst, B.; Heilig, C.E.; Beck, K.; et al. Sarcoma Classification by DNA Methylation Profiling. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Nicolle, R.; Ayadi, M.; Gomez-Brouchet, A.; Armenoult, L.; Banneau, G.; Elarouci, N.; Tallegas, M.; Decouvelaere, A.V.; Aubert, S.; Rédini, F.; et al. Integrated Molecular Characterization of Chondrosarcoma Reveals Critical Determinants of Disease Progression. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 4622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Cancers 15 03603 g001 550
Figure 1. IDH mutations have a wide variety of downstream biological effects. Mutated IDH enzymes produce D-2-HG, which is an oncometabolite that competitively binds α-KG-dependent enzymes. Inhibition of this class of enzymes leads to widespread changes in the epigenomes and metabolomes of cells and alterations in DNA repair pathways, extracellular matrix structure, and cellular growth signalling pathways. Besides the inhibition of α-KG-dependent enzymes, IDH mutations also cause metabolic stress, metabolic rewiring, the depletion of NADPH, and an increase in ROS.
Figure 1. IDH mutations have a wide variety of downstream biological effects. Mutated IDH enzymes produce D-2-HG, which is an oncometabolite that competitively binds α-KG-dependent enzymes. Inhibition of this class of enzymes leads to widespread changes in the epigenomes and metabolomes of cells and alterations in DNA repair pathways, extracellular matrix structure, and cellular growth signalling pathways. Besides the inhibition of α-KG-dependent enzymes, IDH mutations also cause metabolic stress, metabolic rewiring, the depletion of NADPH, and an increase in ROS.
Cancers 15 03603 g001
Table
Table 1. IDH mutations in different tumour types.
Table 1. IDH mutations in different tumour types.
AMLGliomaCholangiocarcinomaChondrosarcoma
Frequency of IDHMUT~10–15%
[14]		>70%
[14]		~15–20%
[14]		~50%
[7,8,9]
Most common IDHMUT variantIDH2 p.R140Q (~40%)
Weak D-2-HG Producer
[16,17]		IDH1 p.R132H (~90%)
Weak D-2-HG Producer
[16,18]		IDH1 p.R132C (~60%)
Strong D-2-HG Producer
[16,18]		IDH1 p.R132C (~60%)
Strong D-2-HG Producer
[15,16,18]
IDHMUT inhibition
in vitro		Differentiation
[26]		No effect
[27]		No effect
[28]		Controversial
[27,29,30,31]
IDHMUT inhibition
clinical trials		~40% response,
secondary resistance
[32,33,34,35]		Less promising, prolonged disease control in subset
[36]		Less promising, prolonged disease control in subset
[37]		Durable disease control in subset
[38]
IDHMUT effect on outcomeNo difference
(in MDS: worse prognosis)
[20,21]		Better prognosis, due to favourable response?
[22]		Beneficial?
[23]		Controversial
[15,24,25]
MDS: myelodysplastic syndrome.
Table
Table 2. Synthetic lethal interactions with the IDH mutation in in vitro models.
Table 2. Synthetic lethal interactions with the IDH mutation in in vitro models.
AMLGliomaCholangiocarcinomaChondrosarcoma
RadiotherapyMolenaar 2018 [47] *Li 2013 [48]
Kessler 2015 [49]		 De Jong 2019 [61] *
Temozolomide Lu 2017 [50]
Tateishi 2017 [51] *		 Venneker 2019 [66] *
PARP inh.Sulkowski 2017 [52]
Molenaar 2018 [47] *		Sulkowski 2017 [52]Wang 2020 [53]Venneker 2019 [66] *
Palubeckaitė [67] *
Bcl-2/Bcl-xL inh.Chan 2015 [54]Karpel-Massler 2017 [55] De Jong 2018 [62] *
BET inh.Chen 2013 [56]Fujiwara 2018 [28]Fujiwara 2018 [28] *
DNMT inh. Turcan 2013 [57] *
mTOR inh. Batsios 2019 [58] Addie 2019 [63] *
NAMPT inh. Tateishi 2015 [27] * Peterse 2017 [64] *
Glutaminolysis inh.Emadi 2014 [59] *Seltzer 2010 [60] Peterse 2018 [65] *
inh.: inhibitors, * endogenous IDHMUT models. Green: Sensitive; Red: Not sensitive; Yellow: Sensitive, but irrespective of IDHMUT.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Venneker, S.; Bovée, J.V.M.G. IDH Mutations in Chondrosarcoma: Case Closed or Not? Cancers 2023, 15, 3603. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15143603

AMA Style

Venneker S, Bovée JVMG. IDH Mutations in Chondrosarcoma: Case Closed or Not? Cancers. 2023; 15(14):3603. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15143603

Chicago/Turabian Style

Venneker, Sanne, and Judith V. M. G. Bovée. 2023. "IDH Mutations in Chondrosarcoma: Case Closed or Not?" Cancers 15, no. 14: 3603. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15143603

APA Style

Venneker, S., & Bovée, J. V. M. G. (2023). IDH Mutations in Chondrosarcoma: Case Closed or Not? Cancers, 15(14), 3603. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15143603

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop