scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Dominique Figarella-Branger

Bio: Dominique Figarella-Branger is an academic researcher from Aix-Marseille University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Myopathy. The author has an hindex of 80, co-authored 543 publications receiving 30147 citations. Previous affiliations of Dominique Figarella-Branger include Centre national de la recherche scientifique & University of the Mediterranean.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System is both a conceptual and practical advance over its 2007 predecessor and is hoped that it will facilitate clinical, experimental and epidemiological studies that will lead to improvements in the lives of patients with brain tumors.
Abstract: The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System is both a conceptual and practical advance over its 2007 predecessor. For the first time, the WHO classification of CNS tumors uses molecular parameters in addition to histology to define many tumor entities, thus formulating a concept for how CNS tumor diagnoses should be structured in the molecular era. As such, the 2016 CNS WHO presents major restructuring of the diffuse gliomas, medulloblastomas and other embryonal tumors, and incorporates new entities that are defined by both histology and molecular features, including glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype and glioblastoma, IDH-mutant; diffuse midline glioma, H3 K27M-mutant; RELA fusion-positive ependymoma; medulloblastoma, WNT-activated and medulloblastoma, SHH-activated; and embryonal tumour with multilayered rosettes, C19MC-altered. The 2016 edition has added newly recognized neoplasms, and has deleted some entities, variants and patterns that no longer have diagnostic and/or biological relevance. Other notable changes include the addition of brain invasion as a criterion for atypical meningioma and the introduction of a soft tissue-type grading system for the now combined entity of solitary fibrous tumor / hemangiopericytoma-a departure from the manner by which other CNS tumors are graded. Overall, it is hoped that the 2016 CNS WHO will facilitate clinical, experimental and epidemiological studies that will lead to improvements in the lives of patients with brain tumors.

11,197 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (CNS), published in 2021, is the sixth version of the international standard for the classification of brain and spinal cord tumors as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (CNS), published in 2021, is the sixth version of the international standard for the classification of brain and spinal cord tumors. Building on the 2016 updated fourth edition and the work of the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy, the 2021 fifth edition introduces major changes that advance the role of molecular diagnostics in CNS tumor classification. At the same time, it remains wedded to other established approaches to tumor diagnosis such as histology and immunohistochemistry. In doing so, the fifth edition establishes some different approaches to both CNS tumor nomenclature and grading and it emphasizes the importance of integrated diagnoses and layered reports. New tumor types and subtypes are introduced, some based on novel diagnostic technologies such as DNA methylome profiling. The present review summarizes the major general changes in the 2021 fifth edition classification and the specific changes in each taxonomic category. It is hoped that this summary provides an overview to facilitate more in-depth exploration of the entire fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System.

2,908 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Dominik Sturm1, Dominik Sturm2, Brent A. Orr3, Umut H. Toprak1, Volker Hovestadt1, David T.W. Jones1, David Capper1, David Capper2, Martin Sill1, Ivo Buchhalter1, Paul A. Northcott1, Irina Leis2, Marina Ryzhova, Christian Koelsche1, Christian Koelsche2, Elke Pfaff2, Elke Pfaff1, Sariah Allen3, Gnanaprakash Balasubramanian1, Barbara C. Worst1, Barbara C. Worst2, Kristian W. Pajtler1, Sebastian Brabetz1, Pascal Johann1, Pascal Johann2, Felix Sahm1, Felix Sahm2, Jüri Reimand4, Jüri Reimand5, Alan Mackay6, Diana Carvalho6, Marc Remke5, Joanna J. Phillips7, Arie Perry7, Cynthia Cowdrey7, Rachid Drissi8, Maryam Fouladi8, Felice Giangaspero9, Maria Łastowska10, Wiesława Grajkowska10, Wolfram Scheurlen11, Torsten Pietsch12, Christian Hagel13, Johannes Gojo14, Daniela Lötsch14, Walter Berger14, Irene Slavc14, Christine Haberler14, Anne Jouvet15, Stefan Holm16, Silvia Hofer, Marco Prinz17, Catherine Keohane18, Iris Fried19, Christian Mawrin20, David Scheie21, Bret C. Mobley22, Matthew Schniederjan, Mariarita Santi23, Anna Maria Buccoliero11, Sonika Dahiya24, Christof M. Kramm25, André O. von Bueren25, Katja von Hoff13, Stefan Rutkowski13, Christel Herold-Mende2, Michael C. Frühwald26, Till Milde1, Till Milde2, Martin Hasselblatt27, Pieter Wesseling28, Pieter Wesseling29, Jochen Rößler30, Ulrich Schüller31, Martin Ebinger, Jens Schittenhelm32, Stephan Frank33, Rainer Grobholz, Istvan Vajtai, Volkmar Hans, Reinhard Schneppenheim13, Karel Zitterbart34, V. Peter Collins35, Eleonora Aronica36, Pascale Varlet, Stéphanie Puget37, Christelle Dufour38, Jacques Grill38, Dominique Figarella-Branger39, Marietta Wolter40, Martin U. Schuhmann32, Tarek Shalaby11, Michael A. Grotzer11, Timothy E. Van Meter41, Camelia M. Monoranu42, Jörg Felsberg40, Guido Reifenberger40, Matija Snuderl43, Lynn Ann Forrester43, Jan Koster36, Rogier Versteeg36, Richard Volckmann36, Peter van Sluis36, Stephan Wolf1, Tom Mikkelsen44, Amar Gajjar3, Kenneth Aldape45, Andrew S. Moore46, Michael D. Taylor5, Chris Jones6, Nada Jabado47, Matthias A. Karajannis43, Roland Eils, Matthias Schlesner1, Peter Lichter1, Andreas von Deimling2, Andreas von Deimling1, Stefan M. Pfister1, Stefan M. Pfister2, David W. Ellison3, Andrey Korshunov1, Andrey Korshunov2, Marcel Kool1 
25 Feb 2016-Cell
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that a significant proportion of institutionally diagnosed CNS-PNETs display molecular profiles indistinguishable from those of various other well-defined CNS tumor entities, facilitating diagnosis and appropriate therapy for patients with these tumors.

648 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The present “white paper” catalogs the recommendations of the meeting, at which a consensus was reached that incorporation of molecular information into the next WHO classification of central nervous system tumors should follow a set of provided “ISN‐Haarlem” guidelines.
Abstract: Major discoveries in the biology of nervous system tumors have raised the question of how non-histological data such as molecular information can be incorporated into the next World Health Organization (WHO) classification of central nervous system tumors. To address this question, a meeting of neuropathologists with expertise in molecular diagnosis was held in Haarlem, the Netherlands, under the sponsorship of the International Society of Neuropathology (ISN). Prior to the meeting, participants solicited input from clinical colleagues in diverse neuro-oncological specialties. The present "white paper" catalogs the recommendations of the meeting, at which a consensus was reached that incorporation of molecular information into the next WHO classification should follow a set of provided "ISN-Haarlem" guidelines. Salient recommendations include that (i) diagnostic entities should be defined as narrowly as possible to optimize interobserver reproducibility, clinicopathological predictions and therapeutic planning; (ii) diagnoses should be "layered" with histologic classification, WHO grade and molecular information listed below an "integrated diagnosis"; (iii) determinations should be made for each tumor entity as to whether molecular information is required, suggested or not needed for its definition; (iv) some pediatric entities should be separated from their adult counterparts; (v) input for guiding decisions regarding tumor classification should be solicited from experts in complementary disciplines of neuro-oncology; and (iv) entity-specific molecular testing and reporting formats should be followed in diagnostic reports. It is hoped that these guidelines will facilitate the forthcoming update of the fourth edition of the WHO classification of central nervous system tumors.

498 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Feb 2008-Brain
TL;DR: In this paper, mutations in the OPA1 gene can also be responsible for a syndromic form of DOA associated with sensorineural deafness, ataxia, axonal sensory-motor polyneuropathy, chronic progressive external ophthalmoplegia and mitochondrial myopathy.
Abstract: Mutations in OPA1, a dynamin-related GTPase involved in mitochondrial fusion, cristae organization and control of apoptosis, have been linked to non-syndromic optic neuropathy transmitted as an autosomal-dominant trait (DOA). We here report on eight patients from six independent families showing that mutations in the OPA1 gene can also be responsible for a syndromic form of DOA associated with sensorineural deafness, ataxia, axonal sensory-motor polyneuropathy, chronic progressive external ophthalmoplegia and mitochondrial myopathy with cytochrome c oxidase negative and Ragged Red Fibres. Most remarkably, we demonstrate that these patients all harboured multiple deletions of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in their skeletal muscle, thus revealing an unrecognized role of the OPA1 protein in mtDNA stability. The five OPA1 mutations associated with these DOA 'plus' phenotypes were all mis-sense point mutations affecting highly conserved amino acid positions and the nuclear genes previously known to induce mtDNA multiple deletions such as POLG1, PEO1 (Twinkle) and SLC25A4 (ANT1) were ruled out. Our results show that certain OPA1 mutations exert a dominant negative effect responsible for multi-systemic disease, closely related to classical mitochondrial cytopathies, by a mechanism involving mtDNA instability.

431 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System is both a conceptual and practical advance over its 2007 predecessor and is hoped that it will facilitate clinical, experimental and epidemiological studies that will lead to improvements in the lives of patients with brain tumors.
Abstract: The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System is both a conceptual and practical advance over its 2007 predecessor. For the first time, the WHO classification of CNS tumors uses molecular parameters in addition to histology to define many tumor entities, thus formulating a concept for how CNS tumor diagnoses should be structured in the molecular era. As such, the 2016 CNS WHO presents major restructuring of the diffuse gliomas, medulloblastomas and other embryonal tumors, and incorporates new entities that are defined by both histology and molecular features, including glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype and glioblastoma, IDH-mutant; diffuse midline glioma, H3 K27M-mutant; RELA fusion-positive ependymoma; medulloblastoma, WNT-activated and medulloblastoma, SHH-activated; and embryonal tumour with multilayered rosettes, C19MC-altered. The 2016 edition has added newly recognized neoplasms, and has deleted some entities, variants and patterns that no longer have diagnostic and/or biological relevance. Other notable changes include the addition of brain invasion as a criterion for atypical meningioma and the introduction of a soft tissue-type grading system for the now combined entity of solitary fibrous tumor / hemangiopericytoma-a departure from the manner by which other CNS tumors are graded. Overall, it is hoped that the 2016 CNS WHO will facilitate clinical, experimental and epidemiological studies that will lead to improvements in the lives of patients with brain tumors.

11,197 citations

Christopher M. Bishop1
01 Jan 2006
TL;DR: Probability distributions of linear models for regression and classification are given in this article, along with a discussion of combining models and combining models in the context of machine learning and classification.
Abstract: Probability Distributions.- Linear Models for Regression.- Linear Models for Classification.- Neural Networks.- Kernel Methods.- Sparse Kernel Machines.- Graphical Models.- Mixture Models and EM.- Approximate Inference.- Sampling Methods.- Continuous Latent Variables.- Sequential Data.- Combining Models.

10,141 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This review will discuss the biological processes and the structure and function of CCL2, one of the key chemokines that regulate migration and infiltration of monocytes/macrophages.
Abstract: Chemokines constitute a family of chemoattractant cytokines and are subdivided into four families on the basis of the number and spacing of the conserved cysteine residues in the N-terminus of the protein. Chemokines play a major role in selectively recruiting monocytes, neutrophils, and lymphocytes, as well as in inducing chemotaxis through the activation of G-protein-coupled receptors. Monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1/CCL2) is one of the key chemokines that regulate migration and infiltration of monocytes/macrophages. Both CCL2 and its receptor CCR2 have been demonstrated to be induced and involved in various diseases. Migration of monocytes from the blood stream across the vascular endothelium is required for routine immunological surveillance of tissues, as well as in response to inflammation. This review will discuss these biological processes and the structure and function of CCL2.

3,050 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (CNS), published in 2021, is the sixth version of the international standard for the classification of brain and spinal cord tumors as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (CNS), published in 2021, is the sixth version of the international standard for the classification of brain and spinal cord tumors. Building on the 2016 updated fourth edition and the work of the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy, the 2021 fifth edition introduces major changes that advance the role of molecular diagnostics in CNS tumor classification. At the same time, it remains wedded to other established approaches to tumor diagnosis such as histology and immunohistochemistry. In doing so, the fifth edition establishes some different approaches to both CNS tumor nomenclature and grading and it emphasizes the importance of integrated diagnoses and layered reports. New tumor types and subtypes are introduced, some based on novel diagnostic technologies such as DNA methylome profiling. The present review summarizes the major general changes in the 2021 fifth edition classification and the specific changes in each taxonomic category. It is hoped that this summary provides an overview to facilitate more in-depth exploration of the entire fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System.

2,908 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: In this paper, the coding exons of the family of 518 protein kinases were sequenced in 210 cancers of diverse histological types to explore the nature of the information that will be derived from cancer genome sequencing.
Abstract: AACR Centennial Conference: Translational Cancer Medicine-- Nov 4-8, 2007; Singapore PL02-05 All cancers are due to abnormalities in DNA. The availability of the human genome sequence has led to the proposal that resequencing of cancer genomes will reveal the full complement of somatic mutations and hence all the cancer genes. To explore the nature of the information that will be derived from cancer genome sequencing we have sequenced the coding exons of the family of 518 protein kinases, ~1.3Mb DNA per cancer sample, in 210 cancers of diverse histological types. Despite the screen being directed toward the coding regions of a gene family that has previously been strongly implicated in oncogenesis, the results indicate that the majority of somatic mutations detected are “passengers”. There is considerable variation in the number and pattern of these mutations between individual cancers, indicating substantial diversity of processes of molecular evolution between cancers. The imprints of exogenous mutagenic exposures, mutagenic treatment regimes and DNA repair defects can all be seen in the distinctive mutational signatures of individual cancers. This systematic mutation screen and others have previously yielded a number of cancer genes that are frequently mutated in one or more cancer types and which are now anticancer drug targets (for example BRAF , PIK3CA , and EGFR ). However, detailed analyses of the data from our screen additionally suggest that there exist a large number of additional “driver” mutations which are distributed across a substantial number of genes. It therefore appears that cells may be able to utilise mutations in a large repertoire of potential cancer genes to acquire the neoplastic phenotype. However, many of these genes are employed only infrequently. These findings may have implications for future anticancer drug development.

2,737 citations