PURPOSE: The proportion of colorectal cancers located proximal to the splenic flexure increases with age. Colorectal cancers of the microsatellite instability phenotype are preferentially located in the proximal colon. We investigated the location of colorectal cancer with this phenotype in different age groups to determine whether different molecular mechanisms could account for the changes in distribution of colorectal cancers. METHODS: A representative sample of 230 colorectal cancers from three age groups (<45 years, 60-70 years, >87 years) was selected from a subset of The Upper Midwest Oncology Medical Registries database. Microsatellite instability was determined by polymerase chain reaction using a panel of five microsatellite markers. The presence of new microsatellite alleles at two or more loci was scored as microsatellite instability. Tumors were otherwise considered microsatellite stable. MLH1 and MSH2 expression was determined by immunohistochemistry. Methylation of the MLH1 gene promotor was determined by methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction assay. RESULTS: The proportion of tumors of the microsatellite instability phenotype was 21 percent in the young group, 15 percent in the middle group, and 33 percent in the old group. More tumors of the microsatellite instability phenotype were proximal compared with microsatellite-stable tumors in all three age groups, but the differences were significant only for the old group. Tumors of the microsatellite instability phenotype in the older group were associated with MLH1 inactivation (24/29 or 83 percent), MLH1 promoter methylation (18/29 or 62 percent), and proximal location (25/29 or 86 percent), while tumors in the young group were associated with MSH2 inactivation (8/18 or 44 percent) and distal location (11/18 or 62 percent). CONCLUSION: The age-related proximal shift of colorectal cancers is associated with the microsatellite instability phenotype, MLH1 inactivation, and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation.
PURPOSE: The proportion of colorectal cancers located proximal to the splenic flexure increases with age. Colorectal cancers of the microsatellite instability phenotype are preferentially located in the proximal colon. We investigated the location of colorectal cancer with this phenotype in different age groups to determine whether different molecular mechanisms could account for the changes in distribution of colorectal cancers. METHODS: A representative sample of 230 colorectal cancers from three age groups (<45 years, 60-70 years, >87 years) was selected from a subset of The Upper Midwest Oncology Medical Registries database. Microsatellite instability was determined by polymerase chain reaction using a panel of five microsatellite markers. The presence of new microsatellite alleles at two or more loci was scored as microsatellite instability. Tumors were otherwise considered microsatellite stable. MLH1 and MSH2 expression was determined by immunohistochemistry. Methylation of the MLH1 gene promotor was determined by methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction assay. RESULTS: The proportion of tumors of the microsatellite instability phenotype was 21 percent in the young group, 15 percent in the middle group, and 33 percent in the old group. More tumors of the microsatellite instability phenotype were proximal compared with microsatellite-stable tumors in all three age groups, but the differences were significant only for the old group. Tumors of the microsatellite instability phenotype in the older group were associated with MLH1 inactivation (24/29 or 83 percent), MLH1 promoter methylation (18/29 or 62 percent), and proximal location (25/29 or 86 percent), while tumors in the young group were associated with MSH2 inactivation (8/18 or 44 percent) and distal location (11/18 or 62 percent). CONCLUSION: The age-related proximal shift of colorectal cancers is associated with the microsatellite instability phenotype, MLH1 inactivation, and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation.
Authors: Jose Perea; Edurne Alvaro; Yolanda Rodríguez; Cristina Gravalos; Eva Sánchez-Tomé; Barbara Rivera; Francisco Colina; Pablo Carbonell; Rogelio González-Sarmiento; Manuel Hidalgo; Miguel Urioste Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-08-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Amy S Joehlin-Price; Carmen M Perrino; Julie Stephens; Floor J Backes; Paul J Goodfellow; David E Cohn; Adrian A Suarez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Irene Osorio Silla; Daniel Rueda; Yolanda Rodríguez; Juan Luis García; Felipe de la Cruz Vigo; José Perea Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Jenny N Poynter; Kimberly D Siegmund; Daniel J Weisenberger; Tiffany I Long; Stephen N Thibodeau; Noralane Lindor; Joanne Young; Mark A Jenkins; John L Hopper; John A Baron; Dan Buchanan; Graham Casey; A Joan Levine; Loïc Le Marchand; Steven Gallinger; Bharati Bapat; John D Potter; Polly A Newcomb; Robert W Haile; Peter W Laird Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.254