Microsatellite instability and mismatch repair protein deficiency: equal predictive markers?

Current clinical guidelines recommend mismatch repair (MMR) protein immunohistochemistry (IHC) or molecular microsatellite instability (MSI) tests as predictive markers of immunotherapies. Most of the pathological guidelines consider MMR protein IHC as the gold standard test to identify cancers with MMR deficiency and recommend molecular MSI tests only in special circumstances or to screen for Lynch syndrome. However, there are data in the literature which suggest that the two test types may not be equal. For example, molecular epidemiology studies reported different rates of deficient MMR (dMMR) and MSI in various cancer types. Additionally, direct comparisons of the two tests revealed relatively frequent discrepancies between MMR IHC and MSI tests, especially in non-colorectal and non-endometrial cancers and in cases with unusual dMMR phenotypes. There are also scattered clinical data showing that the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors is different if the patient selection was based on dMMR versus MSI status of the cancers. All these observations question the current dogma that dMMR phenotype and genetic MSI status are equal predictive markers of the immunotherapies.

Comparison of standard mismatch repair deficiency and microsatellite instability tests in a large cancer series.

BACKGROUND: The tumor-agnostic indication of immune checkpoint inhibitors to treat cancers with mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR)/microsatellite instability (MSI) increased the demand for such tests beyond Lynch syndrome. International guideline recommendations accept immunohistochemistry (IHC) for dMMR or molecular techniques (PCR or NGS) for MSI status determinations considering the two tests are equal, although there are scattered reports contradicting to this presumption. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Here we have directly compared four protein MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) to MSI Pentaplex PCR test in a large cancer patient cohort (n = 1306) of our diagnostic center where the two tests have been run parallel in 703 cases. RESULTS: In this study we have found a high discrepancy rate (19.3%) of the two tests which was independent of the tumor types. The MSI PCR sensitivity for MMR IHC status was found to be very low resulting in a relatively low positive and negative predicting values. As a consequence, the correlation of the two tests was low (kappa < 0.7). During analysis of the possible contributing factors of this poor performance, we have excluded low tumor percentage of the samples, but identified dMMR phenotypes (classic versus non-classic or unusual) as possible contributors. CONCLUSION: Although our cohort did not include samples with identified technical errors, our data strongly support previous reports that unidentified preanalytical factors might have the major influence on the poor performance of the MSI PCR and MMR IHC. Furthermore, the case is open whether the two test types are equally powerful predictive markers of immunotherapies.