Journal of Translational Medicine (Feb 2024)

Comparison of standard mismatch repair deficiency and microsatellite instability tests in a large cancer series

  • Maja L. Nádorvári,
  • István Kenessey,
  • András Kiss,
  • Tamás Barbai,
  • Janina Kulka,
  • Erzsébet Rásó,
  • József Tímár

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-024-04960-y
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 22, no. 1
pp. 1 – 9

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background The tumor-agnostic indication of immune checkpoint inhibitors to treat cancers with mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR)/microsatellite instability (MSI) increased the demand for such tests beyond Lynch syndrome. International guideline recommendations accept immunohistochemistry (IHC) for dMMR or molecular techniques (PCR or NGS) for MSI status determinations considering the two tests are equal, although there are scattered reports contradicting to this presumption. Materials and methods Here we have directly compared four protein MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) to MSI Pentaplex PCR test in a large cancer patient cohort (n = 1306) of our diagnostic center where the two tests have been run parallel in 703 cases. Results In this study we have found a high discrepancy rate (19.3%) of the two tests which was independent of the tumor types. The MSI PCR sensitivity for MMR IHC status was found to be very low resulting in a relatively low positive and negative predicting values. As a consequence, the correlation of the two tests was low (kappa < 0.7). During analysis of the possible contributing factors of this poor performance, we have excluded low tumor percentage of the samples, but identified dMMR phenotypes (classic versus non-classic or unusual) as possible contributors. Conclusion Although our cohort did not include samples with identified technical errors, our data strongly support previous reports that unidentified preanalytical factors might have the major influence on the poor performance of the MSI PCR and MMR IHC. Furthermore, the case is open whether the two test types are equally powerful predictive markers of immunotherapies.

Keywords