Correlation of NTRK genetic fusions with mismatch repair protein deletion in patients with colorectal cancer / 中华病理学杂志

Objective: To investigate the relationship between the expression of four mismatch repair proteins (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2) and NTRK genetic fusions in colorectal cancer. Methods: The paraffin-embedded tissue blocks of 830 cases of colorectal cancer were collected at the Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing University Medical School, China, from 2015 to 2019. Immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization(FISH) method were used respectively to detect the expression of mismatch repair proteins and the break-apart of NTRKs; and the relationship between the expression of mismatch repair proteins and the NTRK genetic fusions was analyzed. Results: The overall mismatch repair protein deficiency (dMMR) rate was 9.88% (82/830), the mismatch repair proteins proficiency (pMMR) rate was 90.12%(748/830). The total deficiency rate of MLH1 protein was 9.04% (75/830), hPMS2 protein deficiency rate was 9.04% (75/830), MSH2 protein deficiency rate was 2.53% (21/830), MSH6 protein deficiency rate was 4.10% (34/830), the deficiency rate of synchronous MLH1 and PMS2 were 8.67% (72/830) and the deficiency rate of synchronous MSH2 and MSH6 were 2.17% (18/830). The dMMR group was associated with tumor location, different histological subgroups, tumor differentiation, AJCC stage and N stage (P<0.05). There were six cases (7.32%) carrying NTRK fusion by FISH among the 82 cases of dMMR, but only seven cases (0.94%) carrying NTRK fusion among the 748 cases of PMMR. The NTRKs translocation by FISH in all 13 cases were further confirmed by next generation sequencing. Among the clinicopathological characteristics, only differentiation showed significant difference between NTRK fusion positive and negative groups (P<0.05). More importantly, NTRK fusion was enriched in dMMR group (7.32% vs. 0.94%). Conclusion: In dMMR colorectal cancer group, the prevalence of NTRK fusion is higher than that in pMMR group.

Association of status of mismatch repair protein expression and EB virus infection with clinicopathological parameters in 886 gastric adenocarcinoma patients / 中华胃肠外科杂志

Objective: To analyze the expression of mismatch repair (MMR) protein and the EB virus infection in gastric adenocarcinoma, and to examine the association of MMR expression and EB virus infection with clinicopathological parameters. Methods: A case-control study was performed. Clinicopathological data of patients who was pathologically diagnosed as gastric adenocarcinoma, received radical gastrectomy and had complete clinicopathological data from August 2017 to April 2020 in Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital were retrospectively collected and analyzed. The immunohistochemistry (IHC) of MMR proteins and in situ hybridization (ISH) of Epstein-Barr virus encoded RNA (EBER) were reviewed. The associations of MMR and EBER results with clinicopathological parameters were analyzed. The main observations of the study were MMR and EBER expression, and association of MMR and EBER results with clinicopathological parameters. Results: Eight hundred and eighty-six patients were enrolled, including 98 patients who received preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Of 886 patients, 613 (69.2%) were males and the median age was 60 (22-83) years; 831 (93.8%) were mismatch repair proficiency (pMMR), and 55 (6.2%) were mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR). In dMMR group, 47 cases (85.5%) had the deficiency of both MLH1 and PMS2, 1 case (1.8%) had the deficiency of both MSH2 and MSH6, 4 cases (7.3%) had the deficiency only in PMS2, 2 cases (3.6%) had the deficiency only in MSH6, and 1 case (1.8%) had the deficiency only in MSH2. The deficiency rates of PMS2, MLH1, MSH6 and MSH2 were 5.8% (51/886), 5.3% (47/886), 0.3% (3/886) and 0.2% (2/886), respectively. Among the 871 cases with EBER results, 4.9% (43/871) were positive EBER. Univariate analysis showed that dMMR was more frequently detected in female patients (χ(2)=10.962, P=0.001), cancer locating in the antrum (χ(2)=9.336,P=0.020), Lauren intestinal type (χ(2)=9.718, P=0.018), stage T3 (χ(2)=25.866, P<0.001) and TNM stage II (χ(2)=15.470, P=0.002). The ratio of dMMR was not significantly associated with age, tumor differentiation, histological type, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis or Her-2 immunohistochemical score (all P>0.05). Compared with negative EBER, positive EBER was more frequent in male patients (χ(2)=9.701, P=0.002), cancer locating in gastric fundus and corpus (χ(2)=17.964, P<0.001), gastric cancer with lymphoid stroma (χ(2)=744.073, P<0.001) and poorly differentiated cancer (χ(2)=13.739, P=0.010). Positive EBER was not significantly associated with age, depth of invasion, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, TNM stage or Her-2 immunohistochemical score (all P>0.05). In addition, all dMMR cases were EBER negative, and all cases of positive EBER were pMMR. Conclusions: The positive EB virus status is mutually exclusive with dMMR, indicating that different molecular subtypes of gastric adenocarcinoma are involved in different molecular pathways in tumorigenesis and progression. The overlapping of dMMR or positive EBER status and positive Her-2 expression is found in some cases of gastric adenocarcinoma. Patients with gastric adenocarcinoma after radical surgery should be tested for MMR status if they are female, the tumor locates in gastric antrum, the TNM staging is stage II or T3, or if the Lauren classification is intestinal type. And if patients are male, the tumor locates in the gastric fundus and corpus, the cancer is lymphoid stroma, or poor differentiated, the expression of EBER should be detected. Results of our study may provide evidence for further decision-making of clinical treatment.