Heterogeneity of mismatch repair status in paired samples of metastatic colorectal cancer

张琦,黄迪,高鑫,张师垚,赵信禹,赵智成,刘刚
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn421213-20211106-00853
2022-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To investigate the consistency of mismatch repair (MMR) status between primary tumor and paired metastatic tumor of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).Methods:From January 2016 to January 2020, the clinicopathological information of paired samples from patients with mCRC in the General Surgery Department of Tianjin Medical University General Hospital was gathered retrospectively. The MMR status of paired samples was compared and the association between MMR status and clinicopathological features of patients was analyzed. The immunohistochemical methods were employed to detect the expression of four MMR proteins (MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, PMS2). According to the MMR status of primary tumor, the patients were divided into deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) group and proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) group. According to the MMR status of paired samples, the patients were divided into heterogeneous group and non-heterogeneous group. T test, Mann-Whitney U test and χ2 test were used for comparison between groups. Results:A total of 84 patients were included. Ther were 9 cases of dMMR [10.7% (9/84)], and 75 cases of pMMR [89.3% (75/84)]. The dMMR group was more prevalent in the right colon [(88.9% (8/9) vs. 42.7% (32/75), χ2=7.168, P<0.05], had larger primary tumor diameter (7.00 cm vs. 4.00 cm, Z=2.555, P<0.01), and poorer differentiated degree [(66.7% (6/9) vs. 21.3% (16/75), χ2=8.543, P<0.01] than pMMR group. Of the 84 paired samples, 2 [2.4% (2/84)] showed differential expression of a single MMR protein, and 10 [11.9% (10/84)] showed heterogeneity of MMR status, including 4 patients [4.8% (4/84)] with primary dMMR metastatic pMMR and 6 patients [7.1% (6/84)] with primary pMMR metastatic dMMR. Statistical analysis showed that the heterogeneous group had a larger primary tumor diameter (5.75 cm vs. 4.50 cm, Z=1.988, P<0.05) and poorer degree of differentiation than the non-heterogeneous group [70.0% (7/10) vs. 20.3% (15/74), χ2=11.271, P<0.01]. Conclusion:10.7% of mCRC paired samples had heterogeneous MMR status. The MMR status of primary and metastatic tumors should be evaluated completely in the creation of treatment options, as should multipoint and multisite sampling.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?