Prognostic significance of poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma in Tunisian patients

Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of poorly cohesive cell subtype of gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The new World Health Organization (WHO) classification of gastric cancer includes a histological subtype of poorly cohesive carcinoma (PCC), which includes signet-ring cell (SRC) phenotype. We aimed to examine the concordance between preoperative clinical and postoperative histological diagnoses according to the 2010 WHO histological subtypes and to compare the prognoses of these subtypes.

METHODS

The study cohort comprised 665 patients who underwent gastrectomy from 2005 to 2019. Histological subtypes were classified into PCC-NOS (non-signet ring cell subtype), SRC, and non-PCC, which were defined by the predominant component in accordance with the 2010 WHO classification of gastric cancer. The concordance of clinical and pathological diagnosis was examined and clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcome of the three subtypes compared.

RESULTS

The cancers of 443 patients (66.7%) were classified as non-PCC, of 112 patients (16.8%) as PCC-NOS, and of 110 patients (16.5%) as SRC predominant subtypes. Significant differences in sex, age, tumor location, size, macroscopic type, and pathological TNM category (all P<0.05) were found. The concordance rate of preoperative and postoperative histological subtypes was significantly lower for poorly cohesive than other subtypes (P<0.0001). Preoperative stage tended to be underestimated for PCC-NOS subtype and these patients had poorer overall survival than those with the other two subtypes (P=0.005). Multivariate logistic regression analysis of overall survival showed that WHO histological subtype (PCC-NOS vs. non-PCC/SRC, HR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.18-2.29, P=0.0034) was a significant independent prognostic factor.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that poorly cohesive carcinoma subtypes have different biological characteristics and prognoses.

Combining Algorithms to Find Signatures That Predict Risk in Early-Stage Stomach Cancer

This study applied two mathematical algorithms, lattice up-stream targeting (LUST) and D-basis, to the identification of prognostic signatures from cancer gene expression data. The LUST algorithm looks for metagenes, which are sets of genes that are either overexpressed or underexpressed in the same patients. Whereas LUST runs unsupervised by clinical data, the D-basis algorithm uses implications and association rules to relate gene expression to clinical outcomes. The D-basis selects a small subset of the metagene (a signature) to predict survival. The two algorithms, LUST and D-basis, were combined and applied to mRNA expression and clinical data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) for 203 stage 1 and 2 stomach cancer patients. Two small (four-gene) signatures effectively predict survival in early-stage stomach cancer patients. These signatures could be used as a guide for treatment. The first signature (DU4) consists of genes that are underexpressed on the long-survival/low-risk group: FLRT2, KCNB1, MYOC, and TNXB. The second signature consists of genes that are overexpressed on the short-survival/high-risk group: ASB5, SFRP1, SMYD1, and TACR2. Another nine-gene signature (REC9) predicts recurrence: BNC2, CCDC8, DPYSL3, MOXD1, MXRA8, PRELP, SCARF2, TAGLN, and ZNF423. Each patient is assigned a score that is a linear combination of the expression levels for the genes in the signature. Scores below a selected threshold predict low-risk/long survival, whereas high scores indicate a high risk of short survival. The metagenes associate with TCGA cluster C1. Both our signatures and cluster C1 identify tumors that are genomically silent, and have a low mutation load or mutation count. Furthermore, our signatures identify tumors that are predominantly in the WHO classification of poorly cohesive and the Lauren class of diffuse samples, which have a poor prognosis.