4.3 Article

Discordant Mismatch Repair Protein Immunoreactivity in Lynch Syndrome-Associated Neoplasms A Recommendation for Screening Synchronous/Metachronous Neoplasms

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 146, Issue 1, Pages 50-56

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqw067

Keywords

Lynch syndrome; Mismatch repair proteins; Synchronous cancer; Metachronous cancer; Cancer screening

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Lynch syndrome (LS) predisposes individuals to developing synchronous and metachronous LS-associated neoplasms (LSANs). Mismatch repair protein (MMRP) immunohistochemistry (IHC) is widely used to identify LS, but its utility in patients with synchronous/metachronous lesions has not been studied. We studied MMRP IHC in patients with LS with more than one LSAN to provide screening recommendations in patients with synchronous/metachronous neoplasms. Methods: All patients with LS diagnosed at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center from 2009 through 2014 with more than one LSAN and available tumor tissue for immunostaining were identified. Tumors were stained for MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS-2 proteins, and immunoreactivity was scored as intact or lost. Results: Thirteen patients with LS with 29 synchronous and/or metachronous primary LSANs were identified. Neoplasms involved large and small intestine (n = 19), ampulla (n = 1), endometrium (n = 1), and skin (sebaceous neoplasms, n = 8). Nine (69%) of 13 patients showed concordant MMRP results in all tumors, and four (31%) showed discordant MMRP results. Conclusions: LS diagnosis could have been missed in 31% of the study cases if only the LSAN exhibiting intact MMRP expression was screened. Accordingly, our findings support the recommendation to perform LS screening in all primary, synchronous, and metachronous intestinal and endometrial cancers if a previous tumor screened intact.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available