Mismatch repair deficiency: how reliable is the two-antibody approach? A national real-life study

AIMS

Traditionally, mismatch repair (MMR) status is determined by a panel of four antibodies (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, MSH6). If all proteins are retained, cases are MMR proficient (pMMR), while loss of one or more proteins is indicative of MMR deficiency (dMMR). This approach has been challenged in favour of a two-antibody approach, using PMS2 and MSH6 as a first screening. Their retainment is deemed sufficient to declare cases pMMR. In this study we aim to verify the validity of the two-antibody approach.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a nationwide study in colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer (EC) diagnosed between 2016 and 2023, including 47,657 patients to evaluate the two-antibody approach. In 0.17% and 0.4% of cases of CRC and EC, respectively, dMMR cases would be missed with the two-antibody approach. Subgroup analyses pointed towards slightly increased miss rates in younger patients (under the age of 50 years) in both groups and identified special subtypes (signet ring cell carcinoma, medullary carcinoma, and mucinous carcinoma in CRC and clear cell carcinoma in EC) with increased miss rates. For these specific subgroups, a low threshold should be used for further testing. In case of ambiguous or heterogeneous staining patterns, four antibodies should be used.

CONCLUSION

In general, the application of a two-antibody MMR testing strategy does not lead to considerable failure of dMMR identification and saves costs.

A comparative analysis of MMR immunohistochemistry panels: Evaluating the utility of four-protein versus two-protein panels in endometrial cancer patients

AIMS

This study aimed to assess the accuracy of a two-protein panel for mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC) compared to a four-protein panel in a cohort of endometrial cancer patients.

METHODS

The study included patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer between January 2018 and December 2023 with patients underwent MMR IHC staining for the four-protein panel (MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2) serving as the reference standard. Various combinations of two proteins were examined and evaluated for their accuracy against the four-protein panel. Sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), and negative likelihood ratio were calculated for each combination. McNemar's test was performed to assess discordance, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to evaluate diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Of 593 patients, MMR deficiency defined as at least one protein loss was observed in 146 patients (24.62%). When compared with four-protein panel, the highest sensitivity was observed with the MSH6/PMS2 combination (99.32%), followed sequentially by MSH6/MLH1 (97.26%), MSH2/PMS2 (93.15%), MSH2/MLH1 (91.10%), MLH1/PMS2 (79.45%), and MSH2/MSH6 (21.92%). The MSH6/PMS2 combination also demonstrated the best NPV of 99.78% and negative likelihood ratio of 0.01, while MSH6/MLH1 showed satisfactory NPV of 99.11% and negative likelihood ratio of 0.03. McNemar's test revealed no statistical difference between the four-protein panel and the MSH6/PMS2 panel (p = 1.000), and the MSH6/MLH1 panel (p = 0.125).

CONCLUSIONS

The two-protein panel, particularly MSH6/PMS2, offers high sensitivity and negative predictive value, suggesting its potential as a cost-effective alternative to the four-protein panel in MMR testing for endometrial cancer patients.

Testing for deficient mismatch repair and microsatellite instability : A focused update

Testing to detect mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) and high-grade microsatellite instability (MSI-H) has become an integral part of the routine diagnostic workup for colorectal cancer (CRC). While MSI was initially considered to be a possible indicator of a hereditary disposition to cancer (Lynch syndrome, LS), today the prediction of the therapy response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is in the foreground. Corresponding recommendations and testing algorithms are available for use in primary diagnosis (reviewed in: Rüschoff et al. 2021).Given the increasing importance for routine use and the expanding indication spectrum of ICI therapies for non-CRCs, such as endometrial, small intestinal, gastric, and biliary tract cancers, an updated review of dMMR/MSI testing is presented. The focus is on the challenges in the assessment of immunohistochemical stains and the value of PCR-based procedures, considering the expanded ICI indication spectrum. A practice-oriented flowchart for everyday diagnostic decision-making is provided that considers new data on the frequency and type of discordances between MMR-IHC and MSI-PCR findings, and the possible role of Next Generation Sequencing in clarifying them. Reference is made to the significance of systematic quality assurance measures (e.g., QuIP MSI portal and multicenter proficiency testing), including regular continued training and education.

[Testing deficient mismatch repair and microsatellite instability : A focused update. German version]

Testing to detect mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) and high-grade microsatellite instability (MSI-H) has become an integral part of the routine diagnostic workup for colorectal cancer (CRC). While MSI was initially considered to be a possible indicator of a hereditary disposition to cancer (Lynch syndrome, LS), today the prediction of the therapy response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is in the foreground. Corresponding recommendations and testing algorithms are available for use in primary diagnosis (reviewed in: Rüschoff et al. 2021).Given the increasing importance for routine use and the expanding indication spectrum of ICI therapies for non-CRCs, such as endometrial, small intestinal, gastric, and biliary tract cancers, an updated review of dMMR/MSI testing is presented. The focus is on the challenges in the assessment of immunohistochemical stains and the value of PCR-based procedures, considering the expanded ICI indication spectrum. A practice-oriented flowchart for everyday diagnostic decision-making is provided that considers new data on the frequency and type of discordances between MMR-IHC and MSI-PCR findings, and the possible role of Next Generation Sequencing in clarifying them. Reference is made to the significance of systematic quality assurance measures (e.g., QuIP MSI portal and multicenter proficiency testing), including regular continued training and education.

The Importance of Immunohistochemical Heterogeneous Expression of MMR Protein in Patients with Colorectal Cancer in Stage II and III of the Disease

Background and objectives: In patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), heterogeneous expression of Mismatch repair (MMR) proteins can manifest itself in several different forms and is not such a rare phenomenon. Therefore, it is very important to recognize the nuclear expression of MMR proteins of different MMR status in order to avoid false positive or false negative results. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and distribution of heterogeneous expression of MMR proteins in patients with stages II and III of the disease as well as its association with clinical, demographic and pathological characteristics of CRC in relation to proficient and deficient expression of MMR proteins. Material and Methods: The study included 104 cases of colorectal cancer obtained from surgical colectomy material in stages II and III of the disease. Results: From a total of 104 patients with colorectal cancer, immunohistochemical analysis of the expression of all four MMR proteins showed that heterogeneous expression of MMR proteins (as well as deficient immunoreactivity of tumor cells) was present in 12 cases, while proficient expression of MMR proteins was detected in 80 tumors. Conclusions: Our study showed that the only independent predictors of the loss of MMR protein expression were younger patient age and right-sided anatomical location of the tumor. The study also established the existence of heterogeneous expression of MMR proteins in a non-negligible percentage of CRCs (11.5%), where heterogeneous nuclear expression of MMR proteins was described in several different forms.

Frequency of microsatellite instability (MSI) in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: comparison of the Bethesda panel and the Idylla MSI assay in a consecutively collected, multi-institutional cohort

AIMS

Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is a rare malignancy with a poor prognosis which occurs sporadically or in few cases results from a genetic disorder called Lynch syndrome. Recently, examination of microsatellite instability (MSI) has gained importance as a biomarker: MSI tumours are associated with a better response to immunomodulative therapies. Limited data are known about the prevalence of MSI in UTUC. New detection methods using the fully automated Idylla MSI Assay facilitate analysis of increased patient numbers.

METHODS

We investigated the frequency of MSI in a multi-institutional cohort of 243 consecutively collected UTUC samples using standard methodology (Bethesda panel), along with immunohistochemistry of mismatch repair (MMR) proteins. The same tumour cohort was retested using the Idylla MSI Assay by Biocartis.

RESULTS

Using standard methodology, 230/243 tumours were detected as microsatellite stable (MSS), 4/243 tumours as MSI and 9/243 samples as invalid. In comparison, the Idylla MSI Assay identified four additional tumours as MSS, equalling 234/243 tumours; 4/243 were classified as MSI and only 5/243 cases as invalid. At the immunohistochemical level, MSI results were supported in all available cases with a loss in MMR proteins. The overall concordance between the standard and the Idylla MSI Assay was 98.35%. Time to result differed between 3 hours for Idylla MSI Assay and 2 days with the standard methodology.

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate a low incidence rate of MSI tumours in patients with UTUC. Furthermore, our findings highlight that Idylla MSI Assay can be applied as an alternative method of MSI analysis for UTUC.

Tissue microarrey: a potential cost-effective approach for mismatch repair testing in colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Deficiencies in Mismatch Repair (MMR) proteins are one of the major pathways in the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). MMR status evaluation is recommended in every new CRC patient. However, this is not fully implemented due to high costs. Tissue microarray (TMA) enables allocating tissue cores from few specimens to a single paraffin block. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of TMA MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) compared to whole slide. The secondary objective was to evaluate and validate automatic digital image analysis software in differentiating pathological and normal TMA cores.

METHODS

Pathological cores were defined if at least one MMR protein was unstained. Tumoral and normal tissue of 11 CRC patients with known MMR status was used to obtain 623 TMA cores. The MMR staining of each core was evaluated by a pathologist and compared to the whole slide result. Digital analysis software by 3DHistech Ltd. was used to identify cell nucleus and quantify nuclear staining in 323 tissue cores. To identifying pathological tissue, cores the cohort was divided into a test (N = 146 cores) and validation sets (N = 177 cores). A staining intensity score (SIS) was developed, and its performance compared to the pathologist review of each core and to the whole slide result.

RESULTS

Compared to the whole slide, the pathologist's assessment had 100% sensitivity (n/N = 112/112) and 100% specificity (n/N = 278/278) with 95% lower limit of 97 and 99% respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of SIS was 77%. A cutoff of 55 was obtained from the ROC curve. By implementing the cutoff in the validation dataset, the SIS had sensitivity and specificity of 98.2% [90.1-100%] and 58.5% [49.3-67.4%] respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The MMR status of CRC can be evaluated in TMA tissue cores thus potentially reducing MMR testing costs. The SIS can be used as triage indicator during pathologic review.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Institutional ethical approval was granted for the performance of this study (Emek Medical Center Ethics ID: EMC-19-0179).

Microsatellite Instability Assessment by Immunohistochemistry in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Reappraisal and Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Microsatellite instability (MSI) is caused by defects in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) components. Inactivation of any MMR gene(s), including hMLH1, hMSH2, hMSH6, and hPMS2, can result in MSI. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a sensitive and specific screening tool for MSI that can detect loss of expression of one or more MMR components. Of the four MMR markers, hMLH1 and hMSH2 are considered most informative of MSI status. There has been renewed interest in MSI status in view of its favorable association with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in some cancers. MMR expression patterns in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have not been evaluated systematically.

METHODS

We used clinically-validated IHC assays to assess the expression of hMLH1, hMSH2, hMSH6, and/or hPMS2 in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections of bone marrow core biopsies from patients diagnosed with AML. Mutation profiling was performed using next-generation sequencing to assess for mutations in MMR genes.

RESULTS

The study group included 236 patients with AML, including a cohort treated on a clinical trial of azacitidine and nivolumab (NCT02397720). In addition, hMSH6, and/or hPMS2 expression was assessed in 99 AML patients with diploid karyotype. All patients, except two, had retained expression of all MMR markers assessed: One patient from the azacytidine+nivolumab group had zonal patchy loss of staining of hMLH1 and, to a lesser extent, a similar staining pattern of hMSH2; and one patient from the AML with diploid karyotype group had loss of hMSH2 but retained expression of hMLH1, hMSH6 and hPMS2. In addition, a retrospective analysis on a separate cohort of 139 patients with primary AML, on which next generation sequencing profiling was performed, identified 14 cases with alterations in MMR genes.

CONCLUSION AND REMARKS

MMR loss is a rare event in AML, thus does not appear to underlie response patterns to anti-PD1 therapy.

Validity of a two-antibody testing algorithm for mismatch repair deficiency testing in cancer; a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Reflex mismatch repair immunohistochemistry (MMR IHC) testing for MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 and MSH6 is used to screen for Lynch syndrome. Recently MMR-deficiency (MMRd) has been approved as a pan-cancer predictive biomarker for checkpoint inhibitor therapy, leading to a vast increase in the use of MMR IHC in clinical practice. We explored whether immunohistochemical staining with PMS2 and MSH6 can be used as a reliable substitute. This two-antibody testing algorithm has the benefit of saving tissue, cutting costs and saving time. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were systematically searched for articles reporting on MMR IHC. The weighed percentage of cases with isolated MLH1 or MSH2 loss or combined MLH1/MSH2 loss alone was analyzed using a random effects model meta-analysis in R. The search yielded 1704 unique citations, of which 131 studies were included, describing 9014 patients. A weighed percentage of 1.1% (95% CI 0.53-18.87, I = 87%) of cases with isolated MLH1 or MSH2 loss or combined MLH1/MSH2 loss alone was observed. In the six articles with the main aim of investigating the two-antibody testing algorithm all MMRd cases were detected with the two-antibody testing algorithm, there were no cases with isolated MLH1 or MSH2 loss or combined MLH1/MSH2 loss alone. This high detection rate of MMRd of the two-antibody testing algorithm supports its use in clinical practice by specialized pathologists. Staining of all four antibodies should remain the standard in cases with equivocal results of the two-antibody testing algorithm. Finally, educational sessions in which staining pattern pitfalls are discussed will continue to be important.

Assessing colorectal cancer mismatch repair status in the modern era: a survey of current practices and re-evaluation of the role of microsatellite instability testing

Results of DNA mismatch repair testing are used to detect Lynch syndrome and have prognostic and therapeutic implications among patients with sporadic colorectal carcinomas. Immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair proteins (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, MSH6) and PCR for microsatellite instability are two established methods for assessing mismatch repair function. Older literature suggested a discordance rate of approximately 5% between these assays, leading some institutions to perform dual testing on all cases. Although universal mismatch repair testing is now recommended by multiple professional organizations, none provide guidelines regarding preferred assays. We surveyed 96 academic and nonacademic institutions to assess Lynch syndrome screening practices and evaluated discordance rates between immunohistochemistry and PCR among 809 colorectal cancers tested in our own institution. Our survey demonstrated no significant differences between academic and nonacademic practices with respect to testing strategies. Eighty six percent performed universal screening, and usually (76%) employed immunohistochemistry on initial biopsy samples. Only 20% employed PCR; these were mostly academic practices that used both immunohistochemistry and PCR (p < 0.01 compared with the nonacademic groups). Loss of MLH1/PMS2 staining was often (90%) followed by either BRAF mutational analysis or MLH1 methylation assays. Only 24% adhered to WHO recommendations to assign histologic grade based on mismatch repair status. We found only 3 cases (0.4%) with discordant immunohistochemistry and PCR results in our own practice: 1 reflected decreased MSH-6 staining in a neoadjuvantly treated microsatellite stable tumor, 1 MLH1-deficient tumor showed diminished MLH1/PMS2 in the tumor compared with internal control, and 1 case reflected an error in the molecular laboratory. Overall, our results showed extremely low discordance between methods assessing mismatch repair status and would suggest immunohistochemistry as the preferred single screening test. PCR can be reserved for cases that show equivocal immunostaining patterns.

Mismatch repair deficiency assessment by immunohistochemistry: for Lynch syndrome screening and beyond

While mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency has been studied extensively, the assessment of MMR status in colorectal and other cancers remains highly relevant, particularly in light of recent data demonstrating that MMR deficiency is a strong predictor for treatment benefit with immune checkpoint inhibitors across multiple tumor types. In colorectal cancer, there is a growing consensus in support of routine MMR testing for Lynch syndrome screening, to inform prognosis and adjuvant chemotherapy use in early stage disease, and to predict response to immunotherapy in advanced disease. Here, we provide a review of the Ventana MMR Immunohistochemistry Panel, which was recently approved by the US FDA for use in Lynch syndrome screening.

Gynaecological neoplasms in common familial syndromes (Lynch and HBOC)

Recognising hereditary predisposition in a cancer patient has implications both for the patient and the patient's kindred. For the latter, cascade germline testing can reassure those not-at-risk family members while carriers can be enrolled in cancer screening and prevention programs that are medically effective and economically sustainable for health care systems. Furthermore, in many of these syndromes, ramifications of molecular phenotypes are increasing, and it is now emerging that, in addition, they convey prognostic and predictive information. Although cancer predisposition syndromes are rare, these molecular phenotypes also occur as somatic events in sporadic cancer settings. The information obtained from these molecular phenotypes, regardless of germline or somatic origin, is being incorporated into clinical management in view of their manifold significance. Thus, increasingly, bespoke management of cancer patients involves testing for both germline and somatic mutations in tumours. Lynch syndrome and BRCA-1 and BRCA-2-associated hereditary breast and ovarian cancer are hereditary cancer syndromes frequently involving the gynaecological tract but tumours associated with similar molecular alterations may also occur sporadically. Thus, the molecular phenotype of mismatch repair deficiency, microsatellite instability or hypermutator phenotype may be attributable to germline or somatic events. Similarly, homologous recombination deficiency or 'BRCAness' in ovarian cancers may be syndromic or sporadic. While hereditary syndromes are well recognised, the prognostic and predictive implications of these molecular phenotypes have only recently been elucidated and these aspects will finally ensure that molecular screening may become standard of care. Thus, nowadays pathologists are asked to designate the molecular phenotype of these cancers and then determine whether it is due to hereditary or sporadic causes.

Molecular classification and precision therapy of cancer: immune checkpoint inhibitors

On May 23, 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a treatment for cancer patients with positive microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) markers or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) markers. This approach is the first approved tumor treatment using a common biomarker rather than specified tumor locations in the body. FDA previously approved Keytruda for treatment of several types of malignancies, such as metastatic melanoma, metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer, refractory Hodgkin lymphoma, and urothelial carcinoma, all of which carry positive programmed death-1/programmed death-ligand 1 biomarkers. Therefore, indications of Keytruda significantly expanded. Several types of malignancies are disclosed by MSI-H status due to dMMR and characterized by increased neoantigen load, which elicits intense host immune response in tumor microenvironment, including portions of colorectal and gastric carcinomas. Currently, biomarker-based patient selection remains a challenge. Pathologists play important roles in evaluating histology and biomarker results and establishing detection methods. Taking gastric cancer as an example, its molecular classification is built on genome abnormalities, but it lacks acceptable clinical characteristics. Pathologists are expected to act as "genetic interpreters" or "genetic translators" and build a link between molecular subtypes with tumor histological features. Subsequently, by using their findings, oncologists will carry out targeted therapy based on molecular classification.

Deficient mismatch repair: Read all about it (Review)

Defects in the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, result in a phenotype called microsatellite instability (MSI), occurring in up to 15% of sporadic colorectal cancers. Approximately one quarter of colon cancers with deficient MMR (dMMR) develop as a result of an inherited predisposition syndrome, Lynch syndrome (formerly known as HNPCC). It is essential to identify patients who potentially have Lynch syndrome, as not only they, but also family members, may require screening and monitoring. Diagnostic criteria have been developed, based primarily on Western populations, and several methodologies are available to identify dMMR tumours, including immunohistochemistry and microsatellite testing. These criteria have provided evidence supporting the introduction of reflex testing. Yet, it is becoming increasingly clear that tests have a limited sensitivity and specificity and may yet be superseded by next generation sequencing. In this review, the limitations of diagnostic criteria are discussed, and current and emerging screening technologies explained. There is now useful evidence supporting the prognostic and predictive value of dMMR status in colorectal tumours, but much less is known about their value in extracolonic tumours, that may also feature in Lynch syndrome. This review assesses current literature relating to dMMR in endometrial, ovarian, gastric and melanoma cancers, which it would seem, may benefit from large-scale clinical trials in order to further close the gap in knowledge between colorectal and extracolonic tumours.

Heterogenous mismatch-repair status in colorectal cancer

Abstract

Virtual Slides

The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/1771940323126788

Guidelines and considerations for conducting experiments using tissue microarrays

Tissue microarrays (TMAs) represent a powerful method for undertaking large-scale tissue-based biomarker studies. While TMAs offer several advantages, there are a number of issues specific to their use which need to be considered when employing this method. Given the investment in TMA-based research, guidance on design and execution of experiments will be of benefit and should help researchers new to TMA-based studies to avoid known pitfalls. Furthermore, a consensus on quality standards for TMA-based experiments should improve the robustness and reproducibility of studies, thereby increasing the likelihood of identifying clinically useful biomarkers. In order to address these issues, the National Cancer Research Institute Biomarker and Imaging Clinical Studies Group organized a 1-day TMA workshop held in Nottingham in May 2012. The document herein summarizes the conclusions from the workshop. It includes guidance and considerations on all aspects of TMA-based research, including the pre-analytical stages of experimental design, the analytical stages of data acquisition, and the postanalytical stages of data analysis. A checklist is presented which can be used both for planning a TMA experiment and interpreting the results of such an experiment. For studies of cancer biomarkers, this checklist could be used as a supplement to the REMARK guidelines.

The utility of diagnostic biopsy specimens for predictive molecular testing in colorectal cancer

AIMS

If stratified medicine is to be applied in the neoadjuvant setting, predictive testing will have to be undertaken on preoperative diagnostic biopsy specimens. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a diagnostic biopsy was adequately representative of the main tumour in colorectal cancer.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty cases of paired biopsy and subsequent resection specimens were randomly selected. Samples were screened for mutation in KRAS (codons 12/13, 61, and 146), BRAF (codon 600 and exon 11), PIK3CA (exons 1, 9, and 20), TP53 (exons 5-8), and microsatellite instability, using the quick multiplex consensus or standard polymerase chain reaction (PCR) protocols followed by high-resolution melting analysis. A total of 570 paired PCR tests were performed for mutation detection, and identical results were obtained in both biopsy and resection specimens in 569 tests (>99% concordance). Four cases (13%) showed microsatellite instability, and, in all four cases, instability was seen at identical mononucleotide markers in both biopsy and matched resection specimens.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to show that diagnostic biopsy specimens, even though they are a tiny sample of the tumour, are sufficiently representative for use in predictive testing for early driver mutations in colorectal cancer.