Prevalence of elevated microsatellite alterations at selected tetranucleotide repeats in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

EMAST Type of Microsatellite Instability-A Distinct Entity or Blurred Overlap between Stable and MSI Tumors

Microsatellite instability (MSI) represents an accumulation of frameshifts in short tandem repeats, microsatellites, across the genome due to defective DNA mismatch repair (dMMR). MSI has been associated with distinct clinical, histological, and molecular features of tumors and has proven its prognostic and therapeutic value in different types of cancer. Recently, another type of microsatellite instability named elevated microsatellite alterations at selected tetranucleotide repeats (EMAST) has been reported across many different tumors. EMAST tumors have been associated with chronic inflammation, higher tumor stage, and poor prognosis. Nevertheless, the clinical significance of EMAST and its relation to MSI remains unclear. It has been proposed that EMAST arises as a result of isolated MSH3 dysfunction or as a secondary event in MSI tumors. Even though previous studies have associated EMAST with MSI-low phenotype in tumors, recent studies show a certain degree of overlap between EMAST and MSI-high tumors. However, even in stable tumors, (MSS) frameshifts in microsatellites can be detected as a purely stochastic event, raising the question of whether EMAST truly represents a distinct type of microsatellite instability. Moreover, a significant fraction of patients with MSI tumors do not respond to immunotherapy and it can be speculated that in these tumors, EMAST might act as a modifying factor.

Analysis of microsatellite instability in Korean patients with pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a dangerous malignancy with a high mortality rate. Diagnosing PC at an early stage is difficult, and approximately 5% of the patients survive for 5 years. Microsatellite instability (MSI) plays an important role in colorectal cancer (CRC) for prognosis and immunotherapy. Evaluation of MSI status is important as it is recognized biomarker for the positive response of immune checkpoint blockade therapy in cancer. To our knowledge, there is no report yet on the prevalence of MSI in Korean PC patients. Studies have reported conflicting prevalence of MSI in PC.

METHODS

Therefore, to improve the likelihood of MSI identification in PC, we included 133 patients with PC; paired tumor and normal tissue DNA were isolated and MSI was analyzed using Promega panel and immunohistochemistry (IHC) was also performed.

RESULTS

Our results from the Promega panel indicated that one (0.7%) tumor was MSI-high (MSI-H), 13 (9.8%) were MSI-low (MSI-L), and 119 (89.5%) were microsatellite stable (MSS). IHC result also confirmed dMMR in only one sample.

CONCLUSIONS

The finding of low incidence of MSI-H observed by the Promega panel also matched IHC results, so this study suggested that in Korean PC patients, MSI prevalence is infrequent.

Elevated microsatellite instability at selected tetranucleotide (EMAST) repeats in gastric cancer: a distinct microsatellite instability type with potential clinical impact?

We investigated the clinical impact of elevated microsatellite instability at selected tetranucleotide (EMAST) repeats in the context of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CTx) in gastric/gastro‐oesophageal adenocarcinomas. We analysed 583 resected tumours (272 without and 311 after CTx) and 142 tumour biopsies before CTx. If at least two or three of the five tetranucleotide repeat markers tested showed instability, the tumours were defined as EMAST (2+) or EMAST (3+), respectively. Expression of mismatch repair proteins including MSH3 was analysed using immunohistochemistry. Microsatellite instability (MSI) and Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) positivity were determined using standard assays. EMAST (2+) and (3+) were detected in 17.8 and 11.5% of the tumours, respectively. The frequency of EMAST (2+) or (3+) in MSI‐high (MSI‐H) tumours was 96.2 or 92.5%, respectively, demonstrating a high overlap with this molecular subtype, and the association of EMAST and MSI status was significant (each overall p < 0.001). EMAST (2+ or 3+) alone in MSI‐H and EBV‐negative tumours demonstrated only a statistically significant association of EMAST (2+) positivity and negative lymph node status (42.3% in EMAST (2+) and 28.8% in EMAST negative, p = 0.045). EMAST alone by neither definition was significantly associated with overall survival (OS) of the patients. The median OS for EMAST (2+) patients was 40.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.4–63.6) compared with 38.7 months (95% CI 26.3–51.1) for the EMAST‐negative group (p = 0.880). The median OS for EMAST (3+) patients was 46.7 months (95% CI 18.2–75.2) and 38.7 months (95% CI 26.2–51.2) for the negative group (p = 0.879). No statistically significant association with response to neoadjuvant CTx was observed (p = 0.992 and p = 0.433 for EMAST (2+) and (3+), respectively). In conclusion, our results demonstrate a nearly complete intersection between MSI‐H and EMAST and they indicate that EMAST alone is not a distinct instability type associated with noticeable clinico‐pathological characteristics of gastric carcinoma patients.

Tetranucleotide and Low Microsatellite Instability Are Inversely Associated with the CpG Island Methylator Phenotype in Colorectal Cancer

Simple Summary

A type of DNA mismatch repair defect known as “elevated microsatellite alterations at selected tetranucleotide repeats” (EMAST) is found across many different cancers. Tetranucleotide microsatellite instability, which is caused by MSH3 mismatch repair gene/protein loss-of-function, shares a molecular basis with “low microsatellite instability” (MSI-L) in colorectal cancer. Tetranucleotide microsatellite instability is also a byproduct of “high microsatellite instability” (MSI-H) that arises from deficiency of mismatch repair due to MSH2, MSH6, MLH1 or PMS2 gene alterations. MSH3-related EMAST is emerging as a biomarker of poor prognosis in colorectal cancer and needs to be clearly differentiated from MSI-H. Here, we show that tumours with non-MSI-H-related EMAST or MSI-L rarely show concordant promoter methylation of multiple marker genes. Colorectal tumours that are positive for a single (1/5) tetranucleotide repeat marker are an important subset of the EMAST spectrum.

Abstract

MSH3 gene or protein deficiency or loss-of-function in colorectal cancer can cause a DNA mismatch repair defect known as “elevated microsatellite alterations at selected tetranucleotide repeats” (EMAST). A high percentage of MSI-H tumors exhibit EMAST, while MSI-L is also linked with EMAST. However, the distribution of CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) within the EMAST spectrum is not known. Five tetranucleotide repeat and five MSI markers were used to classify 100 sporadic colorectal tumours for EMAST, MSI-H and MSI-L according to the number of unstable markers detected. Promoter methylation was determined using methylation-specific PCR for MSH3, MCC, CDKN2A (p16) and five CIMP marker genes. EMAST was found in 55% of sporadic colorectal carcinomas. Carcinomas with only one positive marker (EMAST-1/5, 26%) were associated with advanced tumour stage, increased lymph node metastasis, MSI-L and lack of CIMP-H. EMAST-2/5 (16%) carcinomas displayed some methylation but MSI was rare. Carcinomas with ≥3 positive EMAST markers (13%) were more likely to have a proximal colon location and be MSI-H and CIMP-H. Our study suggests that EMAST/MSI-L is a valuable prognostic and predictive marker for colorectal carcinomas that do not display the high methylation phenotype CIMP-H.

Comprehensive characterisation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with microsatellite instability: histology, molecular pathology and clinical implications

OBJECTIVE

Recently, tumours with microsatellite instability (MSI)/defective DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) have gained considerable interest due to the success of immunotherapy in this molecular setting. Here, we aim to clarify clinical-pathological and/or molecular features of this tumour subgroup through a systematic review coupled with a comparative analysis with existing databases, also providing indications for a correct approach to the clinical identification of MSI/dMMR pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

DESIGN

PubMed, SCOPUS and Embase were searched for studies reporting data on MSI/dMMR in PDAC up to 30 November 2019. Histological and molecular data of MSI/dMMR PDAC were compared with non-MSI/dMMR PDAC and with PDAC reference cohorts (including SEER database and The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network - TCGA project).

RESULTS

Overall, 34 studies with 8323 patients with PDAC were included in the systematic review. MSI/dMMR demonstrated a very low prevalence in PDAC (around 1%-2%). Compared with conventional PDAC, MSI/dMMR PDAC resulted strongly associated with medullary and mucinous/colloid histology (p<0.01) and with a KRAS/TP53 wild-type molecular background (p<0.01), with more common JAK genes mutations. Data on survival are still unclear.

CONCLUSION

PDAC showing typical medullary or mucinous/colloid histology should be routinely examined for MSI/dMMR status using specific tests (immunohistochemistry, followed by MSI-PCR in cases with doubtful results). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) should be adopted either where there is limited tissue or as part of NGS tumour profiling in the context of precision oncology, acknowledging that conventional histology of PDAC may rarely harbour MSI/dMMR.

Meta-analysis examining overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer treated with second-line 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin-based therapy after failing first-line gemcitabine-containing therapy: effect of performance status and comparison with other regimens

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis and few choices of therapy. For patients with adequate performance status, FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are preferred first-line treatment. 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based therapy (e.g. FOLFIRI, OFF, or FOLFOX) are often used in patients who previously received gemcitabine-based regimens. A systematic review was conducted of the safety and efficacy of FOLFOX for metastatic pancreatic cancer following prior gemcitabine-based therapy. A Bayesian fixed-effect meta-analysis with adjustment of patient performance status (PS) was conducted to evaluate overall survival (OS) and compare outcomes with nanoliposomal irinotecan combination therapy.

METHODS

PubMed.gov , FDA.gov , ClinicalTrials.gov , congress abstracts, Cochrane.org library, and EMBASE database searches were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials of advanced/metastatic disease, prior gemcitabine-based therapy, and second-line treatment with 5-FU and oxaliplatin. The database search dates were January 1, 1990-June 30, 2019. Endpoints were OS and severe treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Trial-level PS scores were standardized by converting Karnofsky grade scores to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Grade, and overall study-weighted PS was calculated based on weighted average of all patients.

RESULTS

Of 282 studies identified, 11 randomized controlled trials (N = 454) were included in the meta-analysis. Baseline weighted PS scores predicted OS in 10 of the 11 studies, and calculated PS scores of 1.0 were associated with a median OS of 6.3 months (95% posterior interval, 5.4-7.4). After adjusting for baseline PS, FOLFOX had a similar treatment effect profile (median OS, range 2.6-6.7 months) as 5-FU/leucovorin plus nanoliposomal irinotecan therapy (median OS, 6.1 months; 95% confidence interval 4.8-8.9). Neutropenia and fatigue were the most commonly reported Grade 3-4 TRAEs associated with FOLFOX.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline PS is a strong prognostic factor when interpreting the efficacy of 5-FU and oxaliplatin-based therapy of pancreatic cancer after progression on first-line gemcitabine-based regimens. When baseline PS is considered, FOLFOX has a similar treatment effect as 5-FU and nanoliposomal irinotecan therapy and a comparable safety profile. These findings suggest that 5-FU and oxaliplatin-based therapies remain an acceptable and alternative second-line treatment option for patients with pancreatic cancer and adequate PS (e.g. ECOG 0-1) following gemcitabine treatment.

The Clinicopathological Features and Genetic Mutations in Gastric Cancer Patients According to EMAST and MSI Status

Background: There has been no report regarding the clinicopathological features and genetic mutations regarding elevated microsatellite alterations at selected tetranucleotide repeats (EMAST) in gastric cancer (GC). Methods: The correlation among EMAST status, microsatellite instability (MSI) status, mutations of common GC-related genes and 16 DNA repair-associated genes, and the clinicopathological features were analyzed. Results: Among the 360 GC patients enrolled, there were 76 (21.1%) with EMAST+ tumors and 284 with EMAST− tumors, and 59 (16.4%) were MSI-high (MSI-H) tumors, and 301 were microsatellite stable (MSS) tumors. Patients with EMAST+ tumors exhibited an earlier pathological T category and had more genetic mutations in the PI3K/AKT pathway, ARID1A and DNA repair-associated genes than those with EMAST− tumors. Patients with MSI-H tumors have more genetic mutations in the PI3K/AKT pathway and DNA repair-associated genes than those with MSS tumors. In the subgroup analysis for MSI-H GC, EMAST+ tumors were associated with earlier pathological T and N categories, earlier TNM stages, higher frequency of DNA-repair-associated genetic mutations, and a better survival rate than EMAST− tumors. Conclusions:PI3K/AKT pathway mutations may play an important role in EMAST+ and/or MSI-H GC. EMAST+/MSI-H tumors seem to represent a different subtype of gastric cancer from EMAST−/MSI-H tumors.

Elevated Microsatellite Alterations at Selected Tetranucleotides (EMAST) Is Not Attributed to MSH3 Loss in Stage I-III Colon cancer: An Automated, Digitalized Assessment by Immunohistochemistry of Whole Slides and Hot Spots

INTRODUCTION

EMAST is a poorly understood form of microsatellite instability (MSI) in colorectal cancer (CRC) for which loss of MSH3 has been proposed as the underlying mechanism, based on experimental studies. We aimed to evaluate whether MSH3 loss is associated with EMAST in CRC.

METHODS

A consecutive cohort of patients with stage I-III CRC. Digital image analysis using heatmap-derived hot spots investigated MSH3 expression by immunohistochemistry. Fragment analysis of multiplex PCR was used to assess MSI and EMAST, and results cross-examined with MSH3 protein expression.

RESULTS

Of 152 patients, EMAST was found in 50 (33%) and exclusively in the colon. Most EMAST-positive cancers had instability at all 5 markers, and EMAST overlapped with MSI-H in 42/50 cases (84%). The most frequently altered tetranucleotide markers were D8S321 (38.2% of tumors) and D20S82 (34.4%). Subjective evaluation of MSH3 expression by IHC in tumor found ≤10% negative tumor cells in all samples, most being ≤5% negative. Digital analysis improved the detection but showed a similar spread of MSH3 loss (range 0.1-15.7%, mean 2.2%). Hotspot MSH3 negativity ranged between 0.1 to 95.0%, (mean 8.6%) with significant correlation with the whole slide analysis (Spearman's rho=0.677 P<.001). Loss of MSH3 expression did not correlate with EMAST.

CONCLUSIONS

In a well-defined cohort of patients with CRC, loss of MSH3 was not associated with EMAST. Further investigation into the mechanisms leading to EMAST in CRC is needed.