Cargando…
Validity of a two-antibody testing algorithm for mismatch repair deficiency testing in cancer; a systematic literature review and meta-analysis
Reflex mismatch repair immunohistochemistry (MMR IHC) testing for MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 and MSH6 is used to screen for Lynch syndrome. Recently MMR-deficiency (MMRd) has been approved as a pan-cancer predictive biomarker for checkpoint inhibitor therapy, leading to a vast increase in the use of MMR IHC i...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group US
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9708570/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36104536 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41379-022-01149-w |
_version_ | 1784840964825677824 |
---|---|
author | Aiyer, K. T. S. Doeleman, T. Ryan, N. A. Nielsen, M. Crosbie, E. J. Smit, V. T. H. B. M. Morreau, H. Goeman, J. J. Bosse, T. |
author_facet | Aiyer, K. T. S. Doeleman, T. Ryan, N. A. Nielsen, M. Crosbie, E. J. Smit, V. T. H. B. M. Morreau, H. Goeman, J. J. Bosse, T. |
author_sort | Aiyer, K. T. S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Reflex mismatch repair immunohistochemistry (MMR IHC) testing for MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 and MSH6 is used to screen for Lynch syndrome. Recently MMR-deficiency (MMRd) has been approved as a pan-cancer predictive biomarker for checkpoint inhibitor therapy, leading to a vast increase in the use of MMR IHC in clinical practice. We explored whether immunohistochemical staining with PMS2 and MSH6 can be used as a reliable substitute. This two-antibody testing algorithm has the benefit of saving tissue, cutting costs and saving time. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were systematically searched for articles reporting on MMR IHC. The weighed percentage of cases with isolated MLH1 or MSH2 loss or combined MLH1/MSH2 loss alone was analyzed using a random effects model meta-analysis in R. The search yielded 1704 unique citations, of which 131 studies were included, describing 9014 patients. A weighed percentage of 1.1% (95% CI 0.53–18.87, I = 87%) of cases with isolated MLH1 or MSH2 loss or combined MLH1/MSH2 loss alone was observed. In the six articles with the main aim of investigating the two-antibody testing algorithm all MMRd cases were detected with the two-antibody testing algorithm, there were no cases with isolated MLH1 or MSH2 loss or combined MLH1/MSH2 loss alone. This high detection rate of MMRd of the two-antibody testing algorithm supports its use in clinical practice by specialized pathologists. Staining of all four antibodies should remain the standard in cases with equivocal results of the two-antibody testing algorithm. Finally, educational sessions in which staining pattern pitfalls are discussed will continue to be important. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9708570 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97085702022-12-01 Validity of a two-antibody testing algorithm for mismatch repair deficiency testing in cancer; a systematic literature review and meta-analysis Aiyer, K. T. S. Doeleman, T. Ryan, N. A. Nielsen, M. Crosbie, E. J. Smit, V. T. H. B. M. Morreau, H. Goeman, J. J. Bosse, T. Mod Pathol Article Reflex mismatch repair immunohistochemistry (MMR IHC) testing for MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 and MSH6 is used to screen for Lynch syndrome. Recently MMR-deficiency (MMRd) has been approved as a pan-cancer predictive biomarker for checkpoint inhibitor therapy, leading to a vast increase in the use of MMR IHC in clinical practice. We explored whether immunohistochemical staining with PMS2 and MSH6 can be used as a reliable substitute. This two-antibody testing algorithm has the benefit of saving tissue, cutting costs and saving time. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were systematically searched for articles reporting on MMR IHC. The weighed percentage of cases with isolated MLH1 or MSH2 loss or combined MLH1/MSH2 loss alone was analyzed using a random effects model meta-analysis in R. The search yielded 1704 unique citations, of which 131 studies were included, describing 9014 patients. A weighed percentage of 1.1% (95% CI 0.53–18.87, I = 87%) of cases with isolated MLH1 or MSH2 loss or combined MLH1/MSH2 loss alone was observed. In the six articles with the main aim of investigating the two-antibody testing algorithm all MMRd cases were detected with the two-antibody testing algorithm, there were no cases with isolated MLH1 or MSH2 loss or combined MLH1/MSH2 loss alone. This high detection rate of MMRd of the two-antibody testing algorithm supports its use in clinical practice by specialized pathologists. Staining of all four antibodies should remain the standard in cases with equivocal results of the two-antibody testing algorithm. Finally, educational sessions in which staining pattern pitfalls are discussed will continue to be important. Nature Publishing Group US 2022-09-14 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9708570/ /pubmed/36104536 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41379-022-01149-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) |
spellingShingle | Article Aiyer, K. T. S. Doeleman, T. Ryan, N. A. Nielsen, M. Crosbie, E. J. Smit, V. T. H. B. M. Morreau, H. Goeman, J. J. Bosse, T. Validity of a two-antibody testing algorithm for mismatch repair deficiency testing in cancer; a systematic literature review and meta-analysis |
title | Validity of a two-antibody testing algorithm for mismatch repair deficiency testing in cancer; a systematic literature review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Validity of a two-antibody testing algorithm for mismatch repair deficiency testing in cancer; a systematic literature review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Validity of a two-antibody testing algorithm for mismatch repair deficiency testing in cancer; a systematic literature review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Validity of a two-antibody testing algorithm for mismatch repair deficiency testing in cancer; a systematic literature review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Validity of a two-antibody testing algorithm for mismatch repair deficiency testing in cancer; a systematic literature review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | validity of a two-antibody testing algorithm for mismatch repair deficiency testing in cancer; a systematic literature review and meta-analysis |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9708570/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36104536 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41379-022-01149-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT aiyerkts validityofatwoantibodytestingalgorithmformismatchrepairdeficiencytestingincancerasystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysis AT doelemant validityofatwoantibodytestingalgorithmformismatchrepairdeficiencytestingincancerasystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysis AT ryanna validityofatwoantibodytestingalgorithmformismatchrepairdeficiencytestingincancerasystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysis AT nielsenm validityofatwoantibodytestingalgorithmformismatchrepairdeficiencytestingincancerasystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysis AT crosbieej validityofatwoantibodytestingalgorithmformismatchrepairdeficiencytestingincancerasystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysis AT smitvthbm validityofatwoantibodytestingalgorithmformismatchrepairdeficiencytestingincancerasystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysis AT morreauh validityofatwoantibodytestingalgorithmformismatchrepairdeficiencytestingincancerasystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysis AT goemanjj validityofatwoantibodytestingalgorithmformismatchrepairdeficiencytestingincancerasystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysis AT bosset validityofatwoantibodytestingalgorithmformismatchrepairdeficiencytestingincancerasystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysis |