4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Clinicopathological and prognostic features of Epstein-Barr virus infection, microsatellite instability, and PD-L1 expression in gastric cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 117, Issue 5, Pages 829-839

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.25022

Keywords

Epstein-Barr virus infection; microsatellite instability; molecular targeted therapy; programmed death-ligand 1; stomach neoplasms

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and ObjectivesGastric cancer (GC) has recently been categorized in molecular subtypes, which include Epstein-Barr (EBV)-positive and microsatellite instability (MSI) tumors. This distinction may provide prognostic information and identifies therapeutic targets. The aim of this study was to evaluate EBV, MSI, and PD-L1 immunoexpression in GC and its relationship with clinicopathological characteristics and patient's prognosis. MethodsWe evaluated 287 GC patients who underwent D2-gastrectomy through immunohistochemistry for DNA mismatch repair proteins and PD-L1, and in situ hybridization for EBV detection utilizing tissue microarray. ResultsEBV-positive and MSI were identified in 10.5% and 27% of the GCs, respectively. EBV positivity was associated to male gender (P=0.032), proximal location (P<0.001), undetermined Lauren type (P<0.001), poorly differentiated histology (P=0.043) and severe inflammatory infiltrate (P<0.001). MSI-tumors were associated to older age (P=0.002), subtotal gastrectomy (P=0.004), pN0 (P=0.024) and earlier TNM stage (P=0.020). PD-L1-positive was seen in 8.8% of cases, with predominant expression in EBV-positive GC (P<0.001). MSI was associated to better survival outcomes. ConclusionEBV-positive GCs had increased PD-L1 expression, while MSI GC had better survival outcome. EBV and MSI subgroups are distinct GC entities, their recognition is feasible by conventional techniques, and it may help individualize follow-up and guide adjuvant therapy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available