Literature DB >> 34043067

[MSI testing : What is new? What should be considered? German version].

Josef Rüschoff1, Gustavo Baretton2, Hendrik Bläker3, Wolfgang Dietmaier4, Manfred Dietel5, Arndt Hartmann6, Lars-Christian Horn3, Korinna Jöhrens2, Thomas Kirchner7, Ruth Knüchel8, Doris Mayr7, Sabine Merkelbach-Bruse9, Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus10, Peter Schirmacher11, Markus Tiemann12, Katharina Tiemann12, Wilko Weichert13, Reinhard Büttner9.   

Abstract

Based on new trial data regarding immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), the detection of high-grade microsatellite instability (MSI-H) or underlying deficient mismatch repair protein (dMMR) is now becoming increasingly important for predicting treatment response. For the first time, a PD‑1 ICI (pembrolizumab) has been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for first-line treatment of advanced (stage IV) dMMR/MSI‑H colorectal cancer (CRC). Further indications, such as dMMR/MSI‑H endometrial carcinoma (EC), have already succeeded (Dostarlimab, 2nd line treatment) and others are expected to follow before the end of 2021. The question of optimal testing in routine diagnostics should therefore be re-evaluated. Based on a consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the widely available methods (immunohistochemistry and PCR), a test algorithm is proposed that allows quality assured, reliable, and cost-effective dMMR/MSI‑H testing. For CRC and EC, testing is therefore already possible at the primary diagnosis stage, in line with international recommendations (NICE, NCCN). The clinician is therefore enabled from the outset to consider not only the predictive but also the prognostic and predispositional implications of such a test when counseling patients and formulating treatment recommendations. As a basis for quality assurance, participation in interlaboratory comparisons and continuous documentation of results (e.g., QuIP Monitor) are strongly recommended.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DNA mismatch repair; Endometrial carcinoma; Immune checkpoint inhibitors; Microsatellite instability; Prognosis

Year:  2021        PMID: 34043067     DOI: 10.1007/s00292-021-00944-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pathologe        ISSN: 0172-8113            Impact factor:   1.011


  39 in total

1.  Molecular classification defines outcomes and opportunities in young women with endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Heidi Britton; Leo Huang; Amy Lum; Samuel Leung; Kathryn Shum; Mruganka Kale; Angela Burleigh; Janine Senz; Winnie Yang; Melissa McConechy; Stefan Kommoss; Sara Brucker; Aline Talhouk; C Blake Gilks; Jessica N McAlpine
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 5.482

2.  Microsatellite Instability Pathway and EMAST in Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  John M Carethers
Journal:  Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep       Date:  2017-02-02

3.  Intramucosal activation of pepsinogens in the pathogenesis of acute gastric erosions and their prevention by the potent semisynthetic amphipathic inhibitor pepstatinyl-glycyl-lysyl-lysine.

Authors:  T F Ford; D A Grant; B M Austen; J Hermon-Taylor
Journal:  Clin Chim Acta       Date:  1985-01-15       Impact factor: 3.786

4.  POLE, MMR, and MSI Testing in Endometrial Cancer: Proceedings of the ISGyP Companion Society Session at the USCAP 2020 Annual Meeting.

Authors:  Laura Casey; Naveena Singh
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.762

Review 5.  A review of preanalytical factors affecting molecular, protein, and morphological analysis of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue: how well do you know your FFPE specimen?

Authors:  B Paige Bass; Kelly B Engel; Sarah R Greytak; Helen M Moore
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 5.534

6.  Relationship of EMAST and microsatellite instability among patients with rectal cancer.

Authors:  Bikash Devaraj; Aaron Lee; Betty L Cabrera; Katsumi Miyai; Linda Luo; Sonia Ramamoorthy; Temitope Keku; Robert S Sandler; Kathleen L McGuire; John M Carethers
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-09-16       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Age-dependent performance of BRAF mutation testing in Lynch syndrome diagnostics.

Authors:  Hendrik Bläker; Saskia Haupt; Monika Morak; Elke Holinski-Feder; Alexander Arnold; David Horst; Julia Sieber-Frank; Florian Seidler; Moritz von Winterfeld; Elizabeth Alwers; Jenny Chang-Claude; Hermann Brenner; Wilfried Roth; Christoph Engel; Markus Löffler; Gabriela Möslein; Hans-Konrad Schackert; Jürgen Weitz; Claudia Perne; Stefan Aretz; Robert Hüneburg; Wolff Schmiegel; Deepak Vangala; Nils Rahner; Verena Steinke-Lange; Vincent Heuveline; Magnus von Knebel Doeberitz; Aysel Ahadova; Michael Hoffmeister; Matthias Kloor
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 8.  Quasimonomorphic mononucleotide repeats for high-level microsatellite instability analysis.

Authors:  Olivier Buhard; Nirosha Suraweera; Aude Lectard; Alex Duval; Richard Hamelin
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.434

9.  International Society of Gynecological Pathologists (ISGyP) Endometrial Cancer Project: Guidelines From the Special Techniques and Ancillary Studies Group.

Authors:  Kathleen R Cho; Kumarasen Cooper; Sabrina Croce; Bojana Djordevic; Simon Herrington; Brooke Howitt; Pei Hui; Philip Ip; Martin Koebel; Sigurd Lax; Bradley J Quade; Patricia Shaw; August Vidal; Anna Yemelyanova; Blaise Clarke; Lora Hedrick Ellenson; Teri A Longacre; Ie-Ming Shih; W Glenn McCluggage; Anais Malpica; Esther Oliva; Vinita Parkash; Xavier Matias-Guiu
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.762

Review 10.  Immune checkpoint inhibitors: recent progress and potential biomarkers.

Authors:  Pramod Darvin; Salman M Toor; Varun Sasidharan Nair; Eyad Elkord
Journal:  Exp Mol Med       Date:  2018-12-13       Impact factor: 8.718

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.