Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
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.
Afiliação
  • Hempelmann JA; Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • Lockwood CM; Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • Konnick EQ; Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • Schweizer MT; Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • Antonarakis ES; Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Lotan TL; Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Montgomery B; Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Nelson PS; Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • Klemfuss N; VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • Salipante SJ; Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • Pritchard CC; Human Biology Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
J Immunother Cancer ; 6(1): 29, 2018 04 17.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29665853
ABSTRACT

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.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Próstata / Instabilidade de Microssatélites Limite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: J Immunother Cancer Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Próstata / Instabilidade de Microssatélites Limite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: J Immunother Cancer Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos