BACKGROUND: In colorectal cancer (CRC), microsatellite instability (MSI) is a valuable marker of defective DNA mismatch repair that identifies cancers with distinct phenotypic properties, including favorable survival. However, the optimal assay for MSI status is unknown. We have evaluated a simplified 3-marker assay for MSI and compared it with the 5-marker (NCI) assay to see if technical variations in MSI testing are important. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DNA samples from 357 CRCs were evaluated for MSI using the 5 microsatellite markers recommended for the NCI assay (BAT 25, BAT26, D2S123, D5S346, and D17S250). Results were compared with a simplified 3-marker assay (BAT25, BAT26, and D2S123). CRCs identified as MSI were evaluated for their clinical, pathological, and genetic characteristics. RESULTS: The 5-marker assay identified 96 cancers as MSI. Only 56 of these were MSI by the 3-marker assay (3-marker+ group), leaving 40 cases identified as MSI only by NCI criteria (3-marker- group). The remaining 261 cancers were microsatellite stable (MSS). The 3-marker+ MSI tumors had features characteristic of MSI tumors: more proximal, poorly differentiated, associated with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), more BRAF mutations, fewer KRAS mutations, better 5-year disease-specific survival, more frequent mismatch repair (MMR) protein loss, and less likely to be metastatic on presentation (P < .05). Chromosomal arm loss was observed only in 3-marker- MSI and MSS cancers (P < .05). CONCLUSION: The 3-marker MSI assay outperforms the traditional 5-marker assay for identifying patients with favorable prognosis and homogeneous clinical and genetic features. More accurate MSI testing should improve prognostic and predictive scoring systems for colorectal cancer.
BACKGROUND: In colorectal cancer (CRC), microsatellite instability (MSI) is a valuable marker of defective DNA mismatch repair that identifies cancers with distinct phenotypic properties, including favorable survival. However, the optimal assay for MSI status is unknown. We have evaluated a simplified 3-marker assay for MSI and compared it with the 5-marker (NCI) assay to see if technical variations in MSI testing are important. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DNA samples from 357 CRCs were evaluated for MSI using the 5 microsatellite markers recommended for the NCI assay (BAT 25, BAT26, D2S123, D5S346, and D17S250). Results were compared with a simplified 3-marker assay (BAT25, BAT26, and D2S123). CRCs identified as MSI were evaluated for their clinical, pathological, and genetic characteristics. RESULTS: The 5-marker assay identified 96 cancers as MSI. Only 56 of these were MSI by the 3-marker assay (3-marker+ group), leaving 40 cases identified as MSI only by NCI criteria (3-marker- group). The remaining 261 cancers were microsatellite stable (MSS). The 3-marker+ MSI tumors had features characteristic of MSI tumors: more proximal, poorly differentiated, associated with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), more BRAF mutations, fewer KRAS mutations, better 5-year disease-specific survival, more frequent mismatch repair (MMR) protein loss, and less likely to be metastatic on presentation (P < .05). Chromosomal arm loss was observed only in 3-marker- MSI and MSS cancers (P < .05). CONCLUSION: The 3-marker MSI assay outperforms the traditional 5-marker assay for identifying patients with favorable prognosis and homogeneous clinical and genetic features. More accurate MSI testing should improve prognostic and predictive scoring systems for colorectal cancer.
Authors: M Guidoboni; R Gafà; A Viel; C Doglioni; A Russo; A Santini; L Del Tin; E Macrì; G Lanza; M Boiocchi; R Dolcetti Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Heather Hampel; Wendy L Frankel; Edward Martin; Mark Arnold; Karamjit Khanduja; Philip Kuebler; Mark Clendenning; Kaisa Sotamaa; Thomas Prior; Judith A Westman; Jenny Panescu; Dan Fix; Janet Lockman; Jennifer LaJeunesse; Ilene Comeras; Albert de la Chapelle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-09-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: L A Aaltonen; R Salovaara; P Kristo; F Canzian; A Hemminki; P Peltomäki; R B Chadwick; H Kääriäinen; M Eskelinen; H Järvinen; J P Mecklin; A de la Chapelle Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-05-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Asad Umar; C Richard Boland; Jonathan P Terdiman; Sapna Syngal; Albert de la Chapelle; Josef Rüschoff; Richard Fishel; Noralane M Lindor; Lawrence J Burgart; Richard Hamelin; Stanley R Hamilton; Robert A Hiatt; Jeremy Jass; Annika Lindblom; Henry T Lynch; Païvi Peltomaki; Scott D Ramsey; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; Hans F A Vasen; Ernest T Hawk; J Carl Barrett; Andrew N Freedman; Sudhir Srivastava Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-02-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: G M Nash; M Gimbel; J Shia; A T Culliford; D R Nathanson; M Ndubuisi; Y Yamaguchi; Z S Zeng; F Barany; P B Paty Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-08-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paolo Peterlongo; Khedoudja Nafa; Gabriel S Lerman; Emily Glogowski; Jinru Shia; Tian Z Ye; Arnold J Markowitz; José G Guillem; Prema Kolachana; Jeffrey A Boyd; Kenneth Offit; Nathan A Ellis Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2003-11-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Satu Valo; Sippy Kaur; Ari Ristimäki; Laura Renkonen-Sinisalo; Heikki Järvinen; Jukka-Pekka Mecklin; Minna Nyström; Päivi Peltomäki Journal: Clin Epigenetics Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 6.551
Authors: Lindsay C Hewitt; Yuichi Saito; Tan Wang; Yoko Matsuda; Jan Oosting; Arnaldo N S Silva; Hayley L Slaney; Veerle Melotte; Gordon Hutchins; Patrick Tan; Takaki Yoshikawa; Tomio Arai; Heike I Grabsch Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 7.370