Back

A Brain-Aging Transcriptomic Signature Reclassifies WHO Glioma Grade and Predicts Survival Independently of IDH Status: A Multi-Cohort Study

Saadawy, M.; Khatan, O.; Saadawy, E.

2026-06-18 oncology
10.64898/2026.06.10.26355414 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Despite WHO grade and IDH status, significant survival differences remain in diffuse gliomas. We hypothesized that a brain-aging transcriptomic signature, reflecting neuroinflammation, myeloid infiltration, and synaptic loss, would independently predict survival and allow for molecular reclassification. Methods A neurodegeneration score was derived via PCA of brain MRI volumes from 1,057 OASIS-3 subjects and projected onto 888 TCGA-LGG/GBM (discovery) and 693 CGGA gliomas (validation). A 14-gene signature of glial/myeloid (GFAP, AQP4, TYROBP, TREM2, C1QA, CD68, ITGAM) and neuronal (SYP, DLG4, GRIN1, GRIA1, SNAP25, SYN1, RBFOX3) genes were computed. Elastic-net Cox regression identified a 3-gene panel (C1QA, CD68, GRIA1). Kaplan-Meier, multivariate Cox, decision curve, and single-cell RNA-seq analyses were performed. Results High brain-aging scores predicted poorer overall survival (p < 0.0001) and remained an independent prognostic factor after adjusting for WHO grade and IDH status (z = 4.72, p < 0.001); chronological age was non-significant (p = 0.231). In IDH-mutant gliomas, significance was confirmed in both cohorts (TCGA p = 0.027; CGGA p < 0.0001). Bidirectional reclassification showed high-risk Grade 2 tumors with Grade 3-like survival (p = 0.00089), and indolent Grade 3 tumors resembling Grade 2 by Ki-67. Single-cell RNA-seq confirmed macrophage localization of signature genes; DCA demonstrated net benefit over grade alone at 5-30% probability thresholds. Conclusions A brain-aging transcriptomic signature independently predicts glioma survival beyond WHO grade and IDH status, validated in an independent Chinese cohort, with clinical utility for identifying high-risk Grade 2 and sparing over-treatment of indolent Grade 3 tumors.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Neuro-Oncology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.6%
2
Acta Neuropathologica Communications
89 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.3%
3
Neuro-Oncology
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 14%
5.8%
5
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.4%
6
FEBS Open Bio
31 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.4%
7
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.9%
8
Acta Neuropathologica
58 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.6%
9
Cancer Cell
42 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.5%
50% of probability mass above
10
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 39%
2.5%
11
Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.2%
12
Cell Reports Medicine
153 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
13
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
14
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
15
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
16
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
17
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
494 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.6%
18
Neuro-Oncology Advances
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
19
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.2%
20
Cell Reports
1498 papers in training set
Top 22%
1.2%
21
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
22
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
23
Aging Cell
165 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
24
Molecular Therapy
81 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
25
Aging
75 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
26
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 33%
0.9%
27
Frontiers in Immunology
638 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.9%
28
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
29
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 43%
0.6%
30
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%