Clinical Testing for Mismatch Repair in Neoplasms Using Multiple Laboratory Methods

SIMPLE SUMMARY: There are limited studies that incorporate genetic/epigenetic alterations into the assessment of the microsatellite instability (MSI) and mismatch repair (MMR) determination of tumors. While MSI and MMR testing are part of the screening for the eligibility to employ immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, data from next-generation sequencing (NGS) are not used in the current practice. For most neoplasms, IHC- and PCR-based MSI testing results are concordant. However, for neoplasms with major discordance in IHC and MSI testing, the addition and integration of next-generation sequencing (NGS) results and MLH1 promoter methylation analyses can be beneficial for resolving borderline cases, thereby facilitating patient management. ABSTRACT: Background: A deficiency in DNA mismatch repair function in neoplasms can be assessed by an immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis of the deficiency/loss of the mismatch repair proteins (dMMR) or by PCR-based methods to assess high microsatellite instability (MSI-H). In some cases, however, there is a discrepancy between the IHC and MSI analyses. Several studies have addressed the issue of discrepancy between IHC and MSI deficiency assessment, but there are limited studies that also incorporate genetic/epigenetic alterations. Methods: In this single-institution retrospective chart-review study, we reviewed 706 neoplasms assessed between 2015 and 2021. All eligible neoplasms were assessed by IHC testing, MSI analysis by PCR-based assay, and tumor-normal paired next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis. Eighty percent of neoplasms with MLH1 protein loss had a concurrent MLH1 promoter methylation analysis. Mutation data for MMR genes, IHC, MSI analysis, and tumor histology were correlated with each other. Results: Fifty-eight (8.2%) of 706 neoplasms had MSI-H by PCR and/or dMMR by IHC. Of the 706 analyzed neoplasms, 688 neoplasms (98%) had concordant results: MSI-H/dMMR (n = 44), microsatellite-stable (MSS)/proficient MMR (pMMR) (n = 625), and MSI-Low (L)/pMMR (n = 19). Of the remaining 18 neoplasms, 9 had a major discordance: MSS/loss of MSH2 and MSH6 (n = 3), MSS/loss of MSH6 (n = 2), MSS/Loss of MLH1 and PMS2 (n = 1), and MSI-High/pMMR (n = 3). In total, 57% of cases with dMMR and 61% of cases with MSI-H had a null mutation of an MMR gene mutation (or methylation of the MLH1 promoter), whereas this figure was 1% for neoplasms with a normal IHC or MSI pattern (p < 0.001). Among 9 cases with major discordance between MSI and IHC, only 3 cases (33%) had an underlying genetic/epigenetic etiology, whereas 37 (76%) of 49 cases with MSI-H and/or dMMR and without major discordance had an underlying genetic abnormality (p = 0.02). Discussion: For most neoplasms, IHC and PCR-based MSI testing results are concordant. In addition, an underlying genetic abnormality (a null mutation of an MMR gene or MLH1 promoter methylation) was attributable to dMMR and/or MSI-H findings. For neoplasms with major discordance in IHC and MSI testing, the addition and integration of NGS results and MLH1 promoter methylation analyses can be beneficial for resolving borderline cases, thereby facilitating patient management.