4.7 Article

Strong Prognostic Value of Microsatellite Instability in Intestinal Type Non-cardia Gastric Cancer

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 943-950

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4931-3

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The clinical role of microsatellite instability (MSI) in gastric cancer (GC) is controversial. A large series of patients submitted to respective surgery for primary GC with a long follow-up time was evaluated. Methods. 472 patients with prospectively collected frozen samples of normal mucosa and tumor tissue stored in a biological tissue bank were included. Microsatellite analysis was evaluated using 5 quasi monomorphic mononucleotide repeats (BAT-26, BAT-25, NR-24, NR-21, and NR-27). The presence of MSI in 2 or more loci was classified as MSI-H, whereas all other cases were included in the microsatellite-stable (MSS) group. Results. MSI-H phenotype was found in 111 of 472 patients (23.5 %). MSI-H status was related significantly with older age, female gender, non-cardia location, WHO histotype, non-cardia Lauren intestinal type, and less advanced stages. Cancer-related 5-year survival was significantly higher in MSI-H versus MSS group (67.6 % vs. 35 %, p < 0.001). Stratified analysis revealed a significant impact of MSI on prognosis in non-cardia tumors of intestinal type or tubular/poorly differentiated histology, particularly in stages II and III; multivariate Cox regression analysis confirmed MSS status as a strong predictor of poor prognosis (hazard ratio 2.65, 95 % CI 1.56-4.51, p\ 0.001) in non-cardia intestinal type. No prognostic value of MSI in the diffuse-mixed type and signet-ring cell/mucinous histotypes was observed. Conclusions. MSI was confirmed as a significant predictor of long term outcome in a large series of GC with a long follow-up time, but the prognostic value is limited to selected histotypes of non-cardia tumors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available