4.6 Article

High microsatellite instability predicts good prognosis in intestinal-type gastric cancers

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 585-592

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2010.06487.x

Keywords

gastric cancer; intestinal-type Lauren classification; microsatellite instability; prognostic factor

Funding

  1. Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [FPR08A2-100]
  2. Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare [03-PJ10-PG6-GP01-0002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aim: A subset of gastric cancers showed high microsatellite instability (MSI-H). The reported clinicopathological features of MSI-H gastric cancers are heterogeneous, and specific factors associated with prognosis have not been identified. Methods: We analyzed the clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic factors in a large series (161 cases) of MSI-H gastric cancers, and compared the results to 315 cases of microsatellite-stable or low microsatellite-instable gastric cancers. Results: The frequency of MSI-H gastric cancers was 9% (161/1786). MSI-H gastric cancers have distinct clinicopathological features, including female sex, older age, antral location, well-to-moderate differentiation, intestinal-type Lauren classification, expanding-type Ming classification, a non-signet-ring cell component, the presence of a mucinous component, a moderate-to-severe lymphoid stromal reaction, and a lower tumor stage. The MSI-H phenotype was associated with better prognosis (P = 0.044), and male sex (P = 0.035, hazard ratios [HR]: 0.23), intestinal-/mixed-type Lauren classification (P < 0.001, HR: 0.09) and lower tumor stages (1 and 2, P = 0.001, HR: 0.08) were independently-favorable prognostic factors. Conclusions: With unique clinicopathological features, intestinal-type MSI-H gastric cancers are associated with good prognosis and can be classified as a different subset of gastric cancers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available