Introduction: Glial tumours are the most common primary tumours of brain with survival rate depending on the grade of tumour. Neurological examination, imaging and histopathological examination helps in diagnosis. Though histopathological analysis is gold standard, immunohistochemical studies aids in confirmation of diagnosis. Expression of GFAP decreases with increase the grade of glial tumours.

GFAP helps in differentiating different types of glial tumours on one hand and glial and non-glial tumours on other hand.

Aims: To study the histomorphological patterns of glial tumours using Haematoxylin and Eosin stained sections for initial diagnosis and to evaluate expression of GFAP in glial tumours and correlate GFAP expression with tumour grading.

Methods: This is a prospective study undertaken for a period of one year. A total sample of 30 cases of glial tumours were studied by histopathological and immunohistochemical technique during period of July 2014 to July 2015.

Results: In present study GFAP expression was positive in 87% cases. The mean age of incidence of glial tumour in present study is 40 years. The overall male to female ratio observed was 1.3:1. In current study there was inverse correlation with grade of glioma and GFAP expression with low grade tumours showing intense GFAP staining and higher-grade tumour showing less expression.

Conclusion: Thus GFAP expression can be applied as surrogate marker in assessing the grade of the tumour. GFAP can also be used to indirectly assess the grade of tumour and helps in management of glial tumour.

Keywords: Glioma, GFAP.

1. Ohgaki H, Kleihues P (June 2005). "Population-based studies on incidence, survival rates, and genetic alterations in astrocytic and oligodendroglial gliomas". J Neuropathol Exp Neurol.64 (6): 479–89.
2. Verhaak RGW, Hoadley KA, Purdom E, et al: Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell 17:98–110, 2010.
3. Yan H, Parsons W, Jin G, McLendon R, et al: IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in gliomas. New Eng J Med 360:765–73, 2009.
4. James IW, Tim MH, David LN et al.: Diagnostic pathology of nervous system tumors. Churchill Livingstone Inc. 2002: 2-15.
5. Christian Rickert H & Werner P. Prognosis related histomorphological & immunehistochemical markers in central nervous system tumors of childhood & adolescence. Actaneuropathol. 2005:101-109.
6. Tarik T, Tiannihou Z, Emi H et al.: The prognostic value of histological grading of posterior fossa ependymomas in children: a children's oncology group study & a review of prognostic factors. Mod Pathol. 2008; 21: 165-177.
7. Jung TY & Jung S. Early neuroimaging findings of glioblastoma mimicking non-neoplastic cerebral lesions. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2007; 47(9):424-427.
8. Donaldson SS, Laningham F, Fisher PG (2006). "Advances toward an understanding of brain stem gliomas". J Clin Oncol24: 1266–12.
9. Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Cavenee WK. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Central Nervous System. Lyon: International Agency for Research; 2007.
10. Burger PC, Scheithauer BW. American Registry of Pathology. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (U.S.): Tumors of the Central Nervous System. American Registry of Pathology in collaboration with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; 2007.

Dr Surekha Bantumilli MD

Coimbatore Medical College, Department of Pathology, Avinashi Rd, Peelamedu, Civil Aerodrome Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641018, India