Transcriptional factor typing with SOX2, HNF4aP1, and CDX2 closely relates to tumor invasion and Epstein-Barr virus status in gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer (GC) is a major cancer, sometimes associated with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV). Some transcriptional factors (TFs) are specific to the digestive tract and related to the character of the tumors. METHODS: We studied three TFs, SOX2, CDX2, and hepatocyte nuclear factor 4 alpha-promoter 1 (HNF4aP1) in GC. First, 255 tumors including 31 EBV-associated GC were immunohistochemically examined using tissue arrays and compared TF type and mucin phenotype. We classified them into 4 TF types: N-TF type as SOX2-/HNF4aP1- tumor, G: SOX2+/HNF4aP1-, GI: SOX2+/HNF4aP1+, and I: SOX2-/HNF4aP1+. Next, 915 GCs were intensely investigated and compared with their clinicopathological factors. RESULTS: In the first study, 255 GCs were classified into N-TF 44%, G-TF 31%, GI-TF 3%, and I-TF 2%. The TF type did not strictly accord with the mucin phenotype, classified by MUC2/5AC/6/CD10 expression. EBV status was the only factor related to both the TF and mucin phenotype classifications (P<0.0001, <0.0001). TF classification is related to more factors including tumor stage, than mucin phenotype classification. The second study using 915 GCs revealed that N-TF gradually increased and I-TF decreased as GC invaded deeper. TF classification was not related to nodal involvement in each tumor stage. HNF4aP1 and CDX2 were independent factors for early stage tumor in logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: EBV-associated GC is a discriminating group in both TF and mucin phenotype. TF classification, especially the absence of HNF4aP1 and CDX2, is related to tumor invasion. TF classification is a useful marker to study the carcinogenesis of GC further.

Phenotype analysis by MUC2, MUC5AC, MUC6, and CD10 expression in Epstein-Barr virus-associated gastric carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Gastric marker mucins (MUC5AC and MUC6) and intestinal marker molecules (MUC2 and CD10) have been used to determine the cell lineage of epithelial cell of gastric carcinoma (GC). METHODS: To clarify the characteristics of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-associated GC, 18 cases were immunohistochemically evaluated along with 56 cases of EBV-negative GC. RESULTS: MUC2 expression was lower in EBV-associated GC: immunostaining grades 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 were observed in 10, 6, 1, 1, and 0 cases of EBV-associated GC, respectively, and in 18, 11, 15, 6, and 6 cases of EBV-negative GC, respectively (P = 0.013). CD10 positivity (grades 2-4) in EBV-associated GC was 6%, significantly lower than in EBV-negative GC (34%) (P = 0.030). When phenotypes of GC were categorized by the combined positivities of gastric markers (either MUC5AC or MUC6) and intestinal markers (either MUC2 or CD10), EBV-associated GC included primarily null (44%) and gastric (39%) types, but EBV-negative GC comprised null (7%), gastric (30%), intestinal (27%), and mixed (36%) types. The age of patients with gastric types was significantly younger for both EBV-associated GC and EBV-negative GC cases. CONCLUSIONS: Neoplastic epithelial cells of EBV-associated GC did not express MUC2 or CD10, and most of them were categorized as null or gastric types. EBV infection may occur in the epithelial cells of null or gastric phenotypes, which may be devoid of transdifferentiation potential toward intestinal phenotypes.

CpG island methylation status in gastric carcinoma with and without infection of Epstein-Barr virus.

PURPOSE: EBV-associated gastric carcinoma shows global CpG island methylation of the promoter region of various cancer-related genes. To further clarify the significance of CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) status in gastric carcinoma, we investigated methylation profile and clinicopathologic features including overall survival in four subgroups defined by EBV infection and CIMP status: EBV-associated gastric carcinoma and EBV-negative/CIMP-high (H), EBV-intermediate (I), and EBV-negative (N) gastric carcinoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Methylation-specific PCR was applied to 106 gastric carcinoma cases. CIMP-N, CIMP-I, and CIMP-H status was determined by the number (0, 1-3, and 4-5, respectively) of methylated marker genes (LOX, HRASLS, FLNc, HAND1, and TM), that were newly identified as highly methylated in gastric cancer cell lines. The methylation status of 10 other cancer-related genes (p14, p15, p16, p73, TIMP-3, E-cadherin, DAPK, GSTP1, hMLH1, and MGMT) was also evaluated. RESULTS: Nearly all (14 of 15) of EBV-associated gastric carcinoma exhibited CIMP-H, constituting a homogenous group (14%). EBV-negative gastric carcinoma consisted of CIMP-H (24%), CIMP-I (38%), and CIMP-N (24%). EBV-associated gastric carcinoma showed significantly higher frequencies of methylation of cancer-related genes (mean number +/- SD = 6.9 +/- 1.5) even if compared with EBV-negative/CIMP-H gastric carcinoma (3.5 +/- 1.8). Among EBV-negative gastric carcinoma subgroups, CIMP-H gastric carcinoma showed comparatively higher frequency of methylation than CIMP-I or CIMP-N, especially of p16 and hMLH1. CIMP-N gastric carcinoma predominantly consisted of advanced carcinoma with significantly higher frequency of lymph node metastasis. The prognosis of the patients of CIMP-N was significantly worse compared with other groups overall by univariate analysis (P = 0.0313). CONCLUSION: The methylation profile of five representative genes is useful to stratify gastric carcinomas into biologically different subgroups. EBV-associated gastric carcinoma showed global CpG island methylation, comprising a pathogenetically distinct subgroup in CIMP-H gastric carcinoma.