4.7 Article

MET in gastric carcinomas: comparison between protein expression and gene copy number and impact on clinical outcome

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 107, Issue 2, Pages 325-333

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.237

Keywords

stomach neoplasm; MET; immunohistochemistry; silver in-situ hybridisation; gene amplification

Categories

Funding

  1. National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry for Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea [101146]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare gene copy number (GCN) and protein expression of MET and to evaluate their prognostic roles in gastric carcinomas. METHODS: MET protein expression and gene amplification (GA) status were determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and silver in-situ hybridisation (SISH), respectively, in a large series of gastric carcinoma. RESULTS: Protein overexpression was observed in 104 of 438 cases, with IHC 2+ in 94 and IHC 3+ in 10, and high polysomy of chromosome 7 and GA were found in 61 and 13 of 381, respectively. Direct comparison revealed a significant correlation between high level of protein expression and increased GCN. All cases with GA showed protein overexpression. Furthermore, all with IHC 3+ showed GA except 1, even which could be categorised as GA according to the ASCO/CAP guideline for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 assessment. IHC 3+ and GA were significantly associated with poor prognosis. CONCLUSION: MET IHC reflects well on GA, and therefore, it could be a primary screening test for patient selection for anti-MET therapy if GA is a major determinant of drug responsiveness. Also, the prognostic role of MET indicates that anti-MET therapy is a very promising modality in adjuvant treatment for gastric cancer. British Journal of Cancer (2012) 107, 325-333. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.237 www.bjcancer.com Published online 29 May 2012 (c) 2012 Cancer Research UK

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