BACKGROUND: Utility of immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression has been demonstrated in colorectal cancer but remains incompletely defined in ovarian cancer. We evaluated MMR protein expression in three population-based samples of epithelial ovarian cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: IHC staining was performed on full-section (FS) or tissue microarray (TMA) slides for MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 expression. RESULTS: Out of 487 cases, 147 and 340 were performed through FS and TMA, respectively. Overall, Loss of Expression (LoE) of at least one MMR protein was observed in 12.7% based on an expression score of ≤3 (on a scale of 9). Notably, LoE was significantly higher in TMAs (17.9%) compared to FS cases (0.7%) (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of epithelial ovarian cancers have a loss of MMR protein expression. Protein expression results vary significantly by the tissue sampling methodology utilized, raising concerns about the clinical utility of this test for ovarian tumors.
BACKGROUND: Utility of immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression has been demonstrated in colorectal cancer but remains incompletely defined in ovarian cancer. We evaluated MMR protein expression in three population-based samples of epithelial ovarian cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: IHC staining was performed on full-section (FS) or tissue microarray (TMA) slides for MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 expression. RESULTS: Out of 487 cases, 147 and 340 were performed through FS and TMA, respectively. Overall, Loss of Expression (LoE) of at least one MMR protein was observed in 12.7% based on an expression score of ≤3 (on a scale of 9). Notably, LoE was significantly higher in TMAs (17.9%) compared to FS cases (0.7%) (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of epithelial ovarian cancers have a loss of MMR protein expression. Protein expression results vary significantly by the tissue sampling methodology utilized, raising concerns about the clinical utility of this test for ovarian tumors.
Authors: Tuya Pal; Jenny Permuth-Wey; Judith A Betts; Jeffrey P Krischer; James Fiorica; Hector Arango; James LaPolla; Mitchell Hoffman; Martin A Martino; Katie Wakeley; George Wilbanks; Santo Nicosia; Alan Cantor; Rebecca Sutphen Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Antonio C Wolff; M Elizabeth H Hammond; Jared N Schwartz; Karen L Hagerty; D Craig Allred; Richard J Cote; Mitchell Dowsett; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Wedad M Hanna; Amy Langer; Lisa M McShane; Soonmyung Paik; Mark D Pegram; Edith A Perez; Michael F Press; Anthony Rhodes; Catharine Sturgeon; Sheila E Taube; Raymond Tubbs; Gail H Vance; Marc van de Vijver; Thomas M Wheeler; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-12-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jonathan L Hecht; Joanne Kotsopoulos; Margaret A Gates; Susan E Hankinson; Shelley S Tworoger Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Daniel G Rosen; Xuelin Huang; Michael T Deavers; Anais Malpica; Elvio G Silva; Jinsong Liu Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Ji-Hyun Lee; Deborah Cragun; Zachary Thompson; Domenico Coppola; Santo V Nicosia; Mohammad Akbari; Shiyu Zhang; John McLaughlin; Steven Narod; Joellen Schildkraut; Thomas A Sellers; Tuya Pal Journal: Genet Test Mol Biomarkers Date: 2014-03-04
Authors: Belinda Nghiem; Xiaotun Zhang; Hung-Ming Lam; Lawrence D True; Ilsa Coleman; Celestia S Higano; Peter S Nelson; Colin C Pritchard; Colm Morrissey Journal: Asian J Urol Date: 2016-09-12
Authors: Rachel Hodan; Kerry Kingham; Kristina Cotter; Ann K Folkins; Allison W Kurian; James M Ford; Teri Longacre Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-12-25 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Amit Atwal; Tristan Snowsill; Marcus Cabrera Dandy; Thomas Krum; Claire Newton; Dafydd Gareth Evans; Emma J Crosbie; Neil A J Ryan Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 7.316