Cargando…

MET in gastric cancer – discarding a 10% cutoff rule

AIMS: We aimed to develop a putative predictive biomarker score for future hepatocyte growth factor receptor (MET)‐targeted therapy of gastric cancer (GC). METHODS AND RESULTS: MET expression and MET amplification were analysed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and chromogenic in‐situ hybridization (CIS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Metzger, Marie‐Luise, Behrens, Hans‐Michael, Böger, Christine, Haag, Jochen, Krüger, Sandra, Röcken, Christoph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4744765/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26033401
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/his.12745
_version_ 1782414527713771520
author Metzger, Marie‐Luise
Behrens, Hans‐Michael
Böger, Christine
Haag, Jochen
Krüger, Sandra
Röcken, Christoph
author_facet Metzger, Marie‐Luise
Behrens, Hans‐Michael
Böger, Christine
Haag, Jochen
Krüger, Sandra
Röcken, Christoph
author_sort Metzger, Marie‐Luise
collection PubMed
description AIMS: We aimed to develop a putative predictive biomarker score for future hepatocyte growth factor receptor (MET)‐targeted therapy of gastric cancer (GC). METHODS AND RESULTS: MET expression and MET amplification were analysed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and chromogenic in‐situ hybridization (CISH) in 470 GC patients. Immunostaining was documented with the HistoScore. The percentage area of MET‐amplified tumour cell clones was assessed by virtual microscopy. The expression of MET was heterogeneous in primary and metastatic GC. Immunostaining intensity (MET‐IHC 2+/3+) correlated with MET amplification and a positive MET status was defined by a combination of MET‐IHC 2+ or 3+ with MET amplification, or MET‐IHC 3+ without MET amplification. The prognostic significance of the MET status was independent from the percentage area of positive tumour cells (e.g. <10 versus ≥10%). MET‐positive GCs were microsatellite stable and of KRAS/PIK3CA wild‐type. MET‐positive GCs had a very poor prognosis, with a median survival of 5.4 months and a hazard ratio of 2.126. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of immunohistochemistry and CISH is suitable to assess MET status. If MET status is used as a predictive biomarker, prospective studies should pay specific attention to adequate tissue sampling, should ignore cutoff values for tumour areas, may consider the KRAS and PIK3CA genotype as negative predictive markers and should carry out the analysis expeditiously.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4744765
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47447652016-02-18 MET in gastric cancer – discarding a 10% cutoff rule Metzger, Marie‐Luise Behrens, Hans‐Michael Böger, Christine Haag, Jochen Krüger, Sandra Röcken, Christoph Histopathology Original Articles AIMS: We aimed to develop a putative predictive biomarker score for future hepatocyte growth factor receptor (MET)‐targeted therapy of gastric cancer (GC). METHODS AND RESULTS: MET expression and MET amplification were analysed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and chromogenic in‐situ hybridization (CISH) in 470 GC patients. Immunostaining was documented with the HistoScore. The percentage area of MET‐amplified tumour cell clones was assessed by virtual microscopy. The expression of MET was heterogeneous in primary and metastatic GC. Immunostaining intensity (MET‐IHC 2+/3+) correlated with MET amplification and a positive MET status was defined by a combination of MET‐IHC 2+ or 3+ with MET amplification, or MET‐IHC 3+ without MET amplification. The prognostic significance of the MET status was independent from the percentage area of positive tumour cells (e.g. <10 versus ≥10%). MET‐positive GCs were microsatellite stable and of KRAS/PIK3CA wild‐type. MET‐positive GCs had a very poor prognosis, with a median survival of 5.4 months and a hazard ratio of 2.126. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of immunohistochemistry and CISH is suitable to assess MET status. If MET status is used as a predictive biomarker, prospective studies should pay specific attention to adequate tissue sampling, should ignore cutoff values for tumour areas, may consider the KRAS and PIK3CA genotype as negative predictive markers and should carry out the analysis expeditiously. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-07-14 2016-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4744765/ /pubmed/26033401 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/his.12745 Text en © 2015 The Authors. Histopathology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Metzger, Marie‐Luise
Behrens, Hans‐Michael
Böger, Christine
Haag, Jochen
Krüger, Sandra
Röcken, Christoph
MET in gastric cancer – discarding a 10% cutoff rule
title MET in gastric cancer – discarding a 10% cutoff rule
title_full MET in gastric cancer – discarding a 10% cutoff rule
title_fullStr MET in gastric cancer – discarding a 10% cutoff rule
title_full_unstemmed MET in gastric cancer – discarding a 10% cutoff rule
title_short MET in gastric cancer – discarding a 10% cutoff rule
title_sort met in gastric cancer – discarding a 10% cutoff rule
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4744765/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26033401
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/his.12745
work_keys_str_mv AT metzgermarieluise metingastriccancerdiscardinga10cutoffrule
AT behrenshansmichael metingastriccancerdiscardinga10cutoffrule
AT bogerchristine metingastriccancerdiscardinga10cutoffrule
AT haagjochen metingastriccancerdiscardinga10cutoffrule
AT krugersandra metingastriccancerdiscardinga10cutoffrule
AT rockenchristoph metingastriccancerdiscardinga10cutoffrule