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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |