PURPOSE: To compare microsatellite instability (MSI) testing with immunohistochemical (IHC) detection of hMLH1 and hMSH2 in colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Colorectal cancers from 1,144 patients were assessed for DNA mismatch repair deficiency by two methods: MSI testing and IHC detection of hMLH1 and hMSH2 gene products. High-frequency MSI (MSI-H) was defined as more than 30% instability of at least five markers; low-level MSI (MSI-L) was defined as 1% to 29% of loci unstable. RESULTS: Of 1,144 tumors tested, 818 showed intact expression of hMLH1 and hMSH2. Of these, 680 were microsatellite stable (MSS), 27 were MSI-H, and 111 were MSI-L. In all, 228 tumors showed absence of hMLH1 expression and 98 showed absence of hMSH2 expression: all were MSI-H. CONCLUSION: IHC in colorectal tumors for protein products hMLH1 and hMSH2 provides a rapid, cost-effective, sensitive (92.3%), and extremely specific (100%) method for screening for DNA mismatch repair defects. The predictive value of normal IHC for an MSS/MSI-L phenotype was 96.7%, and the predictive value of abnormal IHC was 100% for an MSI-H phenotype. Testing strategies must take into account acceptability of missing some cases of MSI-H tumors if only IHC is performed.
PURPOSE: To compare microsatellite instability (MSI) testing with immunohistochemical (IHC) detection of hMLH1 and hMSH2 in colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Colorectal cancers from 1,144 patients were assessed for DNA mismatch repair deficiency by two methods: MSI testing and IHC detection of hMLH1 and hMSH2 gene products. High-frequency MSI (MSI-H) was defined as more than 30% instability of at least five markers; low-level MSI (MSI-L) was defined as 1% to 29% of loci unstable. RESULTS: Of 1,144 tumors tested, 818 showed intact expression of hMLH1 and hMSH2. Of these, 680 were microsatellite stable (MSS), 27 were MSI-H, and 111 were MSI-L. In all, 228 tumors showed absence of hMLH1 expression and 98 showed absence of hMSH2 expression: all were MSI-H. CONCLUSION: IHC in colorectal tumors for protein products hMLH1 and hMSH2 provides a rapid, cost-effective, sensitive (92.3%), and extremely specific (100%) method for screening for DNA mismatch repair defects. The predictive value of normal IHC for an MSS/MSI-L phenotype was 96.7%, and the predictive value of abnormal IHC was 100% for an MSI-H phenotype. Testing strategies must take into account acceptability of missing some cases of MSI-H tumors if only IHC is performed.
Authors: Shona Hendry; Roberto Salgado; Thomas Gevaert; Prudence A Russell; Tom John; Bibhusal Thapa; Michael Christie; Koen van de Vijver; M V Estrada; Paula I Gonzalez-Ericsson; Melinda Sanders; Benjamin Solomon; Cinzia Solinas; Gert G G M Van den Eynden; Yves Allory; Matthias Preusser; Johannes Hainfellner; Giancarlo Pruneri; Andrea Vingiani; Sandra Demaria; Fraser Symmans; Paolo Nuciforo; Laura Comerma; E A Thompson; Sunil Lakhani; Seong-Rim Kim; Stuart Schnitt; Cecile Colpaert; Christos Sotiriou; Stefan J Scherer; Michail Ignatiadis; Sunil Badve; Robert H Pierce; Giuseppe Viale; Nicolas Sirtaine; Frederique Penault-Llorca; Tomohagu Sugie; Susan Fineberg; Soonmyung Paik; Ashok Srinivasan; Andrea Richardson; Yihong Wang; Ewa Chmielik; Jane Brock; Douglas B Johnson; Justin Balko; Stephan Wienert; Veerle Bossuyt; Stefan Michiels; Nils Ternes; Nicole Burchardi; Stephen J Luen; Peter Savas; Frederick Klauschen; Peter H Watson; Brad H Nelson; Carmen Criscitiello; Sandra O'Toole; Denis Larsimont; Roland de Wind; Giuseppe Curigliano; Fabrice André; Magali Lacroix-Triki; Mark van de Vijver; Federico Rojo; Giuseppe Floris; Shahinaz Bedri; Joseph Sparano; David Rimm; Torsten Nielsen; Zuzana Kos; Stephen Hewitt; Baljit Singh; Gelareh Farshid; Sibylle Loibl; Kimberly H Allison; Nadine Tung; Sylvia Adams; Karen Willard-Gallo; Hugo M Horlings; Leena Gandhi; Andre Moreira; Fred Hirsch; Maria V Dieci; Maria Urbanowicz; Iva Brcic; Konstanty Korski; Fabien Gaire; Hartmut Koeppen; Amy Lo; Jennifer Giltnane; Marlon C Rebelatto; Keith E Steele; Jiping Zha; Kenneth Emancipator; Jonathan W Juco; Carsten Denkert; Jorge Reis-Filho; Sherene Loi; Stephen B Fox Journal: Adv Anat Pathol Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 3.875
Authors: Andreas Obermair; Danny R Youlden; Joanne P Young; Noralane M Lindor; John A Baron; Polly Newcomb; Susan Parry; John L Hopper; Robert Haile; Mark A Jenkins Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: R C Niessen; M J W Berends; Y Wu; R H Sijmons; H Hollema; M J L Ligtenberg; H E K de Walle; E G E de Vries; A Karrenbeld; C H C M Buys; A G J van der Zee; R M W Hofstra; J H Kleibeuker Journal: Gut Date: 2006-04-24 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Scott M Weissman; Randall Burt; James Church; Steve Erdman; Heather Hampel; Spring Holter; Kory Jasperson; Matt F Kalady; Joy Larsen Haidle; Henry T Lynch; Selvi Palaniappan; Paul E Wise; Leigha Senter Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Koah R Vierkoetter; Asia R Ayabe; Maya VanDrunen; Hyeong Jun Ahn; David M Shimizu; Keith Y Terada Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-08-02 Impact factor: 5.482