Cargando…

Microsatellite instability in prostate cancer by PCR or next-generation sequencing

BACKGROUND: Microsatellite instability (MSI) is now being used as a sole biomarker to guide immunotherapy treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer. Yet current molecular diagnostic tests for MSI have not been evaluated for use in prostate cancer. METHODS: We evaluated two next-generation sequ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hempelmann, Jennifer A., Lockwood, Christina M., Konnick, Eric Q., Schweizer, Michael T., Antonarakis, Emmanuel S., Lotan, Tamara L., Montgomery, Bruce, Nelson, Peter S., Klemfuss, Nola, Salipante, Stephen J., Pritchard, Colin C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5904988/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29665853
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40425-018-0341-y
_version_ 1783315181540999168
author Hempelmann, Jennifer A.
Lockwood, Christina M.
Konnick, Eric Q.
Schweizer, Michael T.
Antonarakis, Emmanuel S.
Lotan, Tamara L.
Montgomery, Bruce
Nelson, Peter S.
Klemfuss, Nola
Salipante, Stephen J.
Pritchard, Colin C.
author_facet Hempelmann, Jennifer A.
Lockwood, Christina M.
Konnick, Eric Q.
Schweizer, Michael T.
Antonarakis, Emmanuel S.
Lotan, Tamara L.
Montgomery, Bruce
Nelson, Peter S.
Klemfuss, Nola
Salipante, Stephen J.
Pritchard, Colin C.
author_sort Hempelmann, Jennifer A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Microsatellite instability (MSI) is now being used as a sole biomarker to guide immunotherapy treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer. Yet current molecular diagnostic tests for MSI have not been evaluated for use in prostate cancer. METHODS: We evaluated two next-generation sequencing (NGS) MSI-detection methods, MSIplus (18 markers) and MSI by Large Panel NGS (> 60 markers), and compared the performance of each NGS method to the most widely used 5-marker MSI-PCR detection system. All methods were evaluated by comparison to targeted whole gene sequencing of DNA mismatch-repair genes, and immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair genes, where available. RESULTS: In a set of 91 prostate tumors with known mismatch repair status (29-deficient and 62-intact mismatch-repair) MSIplus had a sensitivity of 96.6% (28/29) and a specificity of 100% (62/62), MSI by Large Panel NGS had a sensitivity of 93.1% (27/29) and a specificity of 98.4% (61/62), and MSI-PCR had a sensitivity of 72.4% (21/29) and a specificity of 100% (62/62). CONCLUSIONS: We found that the widely used 5-marker MSI-PCR panel has inferior sensitivity when applied to prostate cancer and that NGS testing with an expanded panel of markers performs well. In addition, NGS methods offer advantages over MSI-PCR, including no requirement for matched non-tumor tissue and an automated analysis pipeline with quantitative interpretation of MSI-status. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-018-0341-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5904988
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59049882018-04-24 Microsatellite instability in prostate cancer by PCR or next-generation sequencing Hempelmann, Jennifer A. Lockwood, Christina M. Konnick, Eric Q. Schweizer, Michael T. Antonarakis, Emmanuel S. Lotan, Tamara L. Montgomery, Bruce Nelson, Peter S. Klemfuss, Nola Salipante, Stephen J. Pritchard, Colin C. J Immunother Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: Microsatellite instability (MSI) is now being used as a sole biomarker to guide immunotherapy treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer. Yet current molecular diagnostic tests for MSI have not been evaluated for use in prostate cancer. METHODS: We evaluated two next-generation sequencing (NGS) MSI-detection methods, MSIplus (18 markers) and MSI by Large Panel NGS (> 60 markers), and compared the performance of each NGS method to the most widely used 5-marker MSI-PCR detection system. All methods were evaluated by comparison to targeted whole gene sequencing of DNA mismatch-repair genes, and immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair genes, where available. RESULTS: In a set of 91 prostate tumors with known mismatch repair status (29-deficient and 62-intact mismatch-repair) MSIplus had a sensitivity of 96.6% (28/29) and a specificity of 100% (62/62), MSI by Large Panel NGS had a sensitivity of 93.1% (27/29) and a specificity of 98.4% (61/62), and MSI-PCR had a sensitivity of 72.4% (21/29) and a specificity of 100% (62/62). CONCLUSIONS: We found that the widely used 5-marker MSI-PCR panel has inferior sensitivity when applied to prostate cancer and that NGS testing with an expanded panel of markers performs well. In addition, NGS methods offer advantages over MSI-PCR, including no requirement for matched non-tumor tissue and an automated analysis pipeline with quantitative interpretation of MSI-status. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-018-0341-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-04-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5904988/ /pubmed/29665853 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40425-018-0341-y Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hempelmann, Jennifer A.
Lockwood, Christina M.
Konnick, Eric Q.
Schweizer, Michael T.
Antonarakis, Emmanuel S.
Lotan, Tamara L.
Montgomery, Bruce
Nelson, Peter S.
Klemfuss, Nola
Salipante, Stephen J.
Pritchard, Colin C.
Microsatellite instability in prostate cancer by PCR or next-generation sequencing
title Microsatellite instability in prostate cancer by PCR or next-generation sequencing
title_full Microsatellite instability in prostate cancer by PCR or next-generation sequencing
title_fullStr Microsatellite instability in prostate cancer by PCR or next-generation sequencing
title_full_unstemmed Microsatellite instability in prostate cancer by PCR or next-generation sequencing
title_short Microsatellite instability in prostate cancer by PCR or next-generation sequencing
title_sort microsatellite instability in prostate cancer by pcr or next-generation sequencing
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5904988/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29665853
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40425-018-0341-y
work_keys_str_mv AT hempelmannjennifera microsatelliteinstabilityinprostatecancerbypcrornextgenerationsequencing
AT lockwoodchristinam microsatelliteinstabilityinprostatecancerbypcrornextgenerationsequencing
AT konnickericq microsatelliteinstabilityinprostatecancerbypcrornextgenerationsequencing
AT schweizermichaelt microsatelliteinstabilityinprostatecancerbypcrornextgenerationsequencing
AT antonarakisemmanuels microsatelliteinstabilityinprostatecancerbypcrornextgenerationsequencing
AT lotantamaral microsatelliteinstabilityinprostatecancerbypcrornextgenerationsequencing
AT montgomerybruce microsatelliteinstabilityinprostatecancerbypcrornextgenerationsequencing
AT nelsonpeters microsatelliteinstabilityinprostatecancerbypcrornextgenerationsequencing
AT klemfussnola microsatelliteinstabilityinprostatecancerbypcrornextgenerationsequencing
AT salipantestephenj microsatelliteinstabilityinprostatecancerbypcrornextgenerationsequencing
AT pritchardcolinc microsatelliteinstabilityinprostatecancerbypcrornextgenerationsequencing