ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Prognostic importance of molecular-like classification in gastroesophageal junction tumors (Izmir Oncology Group [IZOG] study)
1
Department of Medical Oncology, Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, The University of Health Sciences, Turkey
2
Department of Medical Pathology, Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, The University of Health Sciences, Izmir, Turkey
3
Department of General Surgery, Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, The University of Health Sciences, Izmir, Turkey
4
Department of Medical Oncology, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
Submission date: 2021-09-26
Final revision date: 2021-12-05
Acceptance date: 2022-01-04
Publication date: 2022-03-08
Pol J Pathol 2021;72(4):315-323
KEYWORDS
gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomamolecular classificationThe Cancer Genome Atlasimmunohistochemical analysischromogenic in situhybridization
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
A comprehensive molecular classification was published in 2014 within The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) to guide clinical approaches and treatment strategies. This study aimed to investigate the clinicopathological and prognostic importance of the classification using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) to identify potential surrogate markers of molecular changes in gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinomas.
A total of 52 GEJ adenocarcinomas were divided into five groups using IHC with MLH-1, E-cadherin, p53 and CISH with EBER: 1) microsatellite unstable (MSI: negative with MLH-1), 2) genomically stable tumors (GS: positive with p53),
3) chromosomally unstable tumors (CUN: negative with e-cadherin), 4) EBV+ tumors (EBV+: positive with EBER) and 5) unclassifiable (G-NOS: MLH-1 and e-cadherin positive with p53 and negative with EBER).
The largest group consisted of 24 (46.2%) cases of CUN tumors. This group was followed by groups of GS with 14 (26.9%) cases, MSI with 7 (13.5%) cases, and EBV + with 3 (5.8%) cases, respectively. Although this classification was not associated with pathological features, it was found to be closely related to prognosis (p = 0.029). Patients with EBV+ tumors had the longest overall survival, followed by the G-NOS, MSI, CUN, GS groups.
A total of 52 GEJ adenocarcinomas were divided into five groups using IHC with MLH-1, E-cadherin, p53 and CISH with EBER: 1) microsatellite unstable (MSI: negative with MLH-1), 2) genomically stable tumors (GS: positive with p53),
3) chromosomally unstable tumors (CUN: negative with e-cadherin), 4) EBV+ tumors (EBV+: positive with EBER) and 5) unclassifiable (G-NOS: MLH-1 and e-cadherin positive with p53 and negative with EBER).
The largest group consisted of 24 (46.2%) cases of CUN tumors. This group was followed by groups of GS with 14 (26.9%) cases, MSI with 7 (13.5%) cases, and EBV + with 3 (5.8%) cases, respectively. Although this classification was not associated with pathological features, it was found to be closely related to prognosis (p = 0.029). Patients with EBV+ tumors had the longest overall survival, followed by the G-NOS, MSI, CUN, GS groups.
REFERENCES (38)
1.
Whitson BA, Groth SS, Li Z, et al. Survival of patients with distal esophageal and gastric cardia tumors: a population-based analysis of gastroesophageal junction carcinomas.
3.
Odze RD, Lam AK, Ochiai A, Washington MK. Tumours of the Oesophagus, in: Edited by the WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board, WHO Classification of Tumours. Digestive System Tumours. 5th Edition. IARC Press, Lyon 2018; 24-58.
4.
Strong VE, Song KY, Park CH, et al. Comparison of gastric cancer survival following R0 resection in the United States and Korea using an internationally validated nomogram 2010. Ann Surg 2010; 251: 640-646.
5.
Wu AW, Ji JF, Li YN, et al. Long-term outcome of a large series of gastric cancer patients in CUNa. CUNese J Cancer Res 2010; 22: 167-175.
6.
deManzoni G, Pedrazzani C, et al. Pattern of recurrence after surgery in adenocarcinoma of thegastro-oesophageal junction. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003; 29: 506-510.
7.
Sánchez-Pernaute A, Aguirre EP, et al. Recurrence pattern of esophageal cancer after esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy. Cancer 2003; 97: 1616-1623.
8.
Eloubeidi MA, Desmond R, et al. Prognostic factors for the survival of patients with esophageal carcinoma in the US: the importance of tumor length and lymph node status. Cancer 2002; 95: 1434-1443.
9.
VonRahden BHA, Stein HJ, et al. Lymphatic vessel invasion as a prognostic factor in patients with primary resected adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. J Clin Oncol 2005; 11: 874-879.
10.
Lagarde SM, ten Kate FJ, Reitsma JB, et al. Prognostic factors in adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 4347-4355.
11.
Tachezy M, Tiebel AK , Gebauer F, et al. Prognostic impact of perineural, blood and lymph vessel invasion for esophageal cancer. Histol Histopathol 2014; 29: 1467-1475.
12.
Goetze TO, Al-Batran SE, Berlth F, Hoelscher AH. Multimodal Treatment Strategies in Esophagogastric Junction Cancer: a Western Perspective. J Gastric Cancer 2019; 19: 148-156.
13.
Jung MK, Ott K, Chevallay M, Mönig SP. Treatment options for oligometastatic gastric cancer. Chirurg 2021; 92: 515-552.
14.
Bass AJ, Thorsson V, Shmulevich I, et al. Comprehensive molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinoma. Nature 2014; 513: 202-209.
15.
Cristescu R, Lee J, Nebozhyn M, et al. Molecular analysis of gastric cancer identifies subtypes associated with distinct clinical outcomes. Nat Med 2015; 21: 449-456.
16.
Battaglin F, Naseem M, Puccini A, Lenz HJ. Molecular biomarkers in gastro-esophageal cancer: recent developments, current trends and future directions. Cancer Cell Int 2018; 18: 99.
17.
Bijlsma MF, Sadanandam A, Tan P, Vermeulen L. Molecular subtypes in cancers of the gastrointestinal tract. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 14: 333-342.
18.
Setia N, Agoston AT, Han HS, et al. A protein and mRNA expression-based classification of gastric cancer. Mod Pathol 2016; 29: 772-784.
19.
Díaz Del Arco C, Estrada Mu¼oz L, Molina Roldán E, et al. Immunohistochemical classification of gastric cancer based on new molecular biomarkers: a potential predictor of survival. Virchows Arch 2018; 473: 687-695.
20.
Szymiczek A, Lone A, Akbari MR. Molecular intrinsic versus clinical subtyping in breast cancer: A comprehensive review. Clin Genet 2021; 99: 613-637.
21.
Tímár J. Molecular classification of pancreatic cancer. Magy Onkol 2021; 65: 201-205.
22.
Huvila J, Pors J, Thompson EF, Gilks CB. Endometrial carcinoma: molecular subtypes, precursors and the role of pathology in early diagnosis. J Pathol 2021; 253: 355-365.
23.
Gonzalez RS, Messing S, Tu X, et al. Immunohistochemistry as a surrogate for molecular subtyping of gastric adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol 2016; 56: 16-21.
24.
Birkman EM, Mansuri N, Kurki S, et al. Gastric cancer: immunohistochemical classification of molecular subtypes and their association with clinicopathological characteristics. Virchows Arch 2018; 472: 369-382.
25.
Ahn S, Lee SJ, Kim Y, et al. High-throughput protein and mRNA expression-based classification of gastric cancers can identify clinically distinct subtypes, concordant with recent molecular classifications. Am J Surg Pathol 2017; 41: 106-115.
26.
Di Pinto F, Armentano R, Arborea G, et al. Are Immunohistochemical Markers Useful in Phenotypic Gastric Cancer Classification? Oncology 2020; 98: 566-574.
27.
Zhang J, Huang T, Zhou Y, et al. The oncogenic role of Epstein-Barr virus-encoded microRNAs in Epstein-Barr virus-associated gastric carcinoma. J Cell Mol Med 2018; 22: 38-45.
28.
Sunakawa Y, Lenz HJ. Molecular classification of gastric adenocarcinoma: translating new insights from the cancer genome atlas research network. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2015; 16: 17.
29.
Choi YY, Bae JM, An JY, et al. Is microsatellite instability a prognostic marker in gastric cancer?: A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol 2014; 110: 129-135.
30.
Zhao C, Feng Z, He H, et al. Protein expression-based classification of gastric cancer by immunohistochemistry of tissue microarray. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0238836.
31.
Genitsch V, Novotny A, Seiler CA, et al. Epstein-barr virus in gastro-esophageal adenocarcinomas-single center experiences in the context of current literature. Front Oncol 2015; 5: 73.
32.
Fuchs CS, Doi T, Jang RW, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Pembrolizumab Monotherapy in Patients With Previously Treated Advanced Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: Phase 2 Clinical KEYNOTE-059 Trial. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4: e180013.
33.
Bang YJ, Kang YK, Catenacci DV, et al. Pembrolizumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: results from the phase II nonrandomized KEYNOTE-059 study. Gastric Cancer 2019; 22: 828-837.
34.
Vranic S. Microsatellite instability status predicts response to anti PD-1/PD-L1 therapy regardless the histotype: a comment on recent advances. Bosn J Basic Med Sci 2017; 17: 274-275.
35.
Derks S, Liao X, Chiaravalli AM, et al. Abundant PD-L1 expression in Epstein-Barr Virus-infected gastric cancers. Oncotarget 2016; 7: 32925-32932.
36.
Cho J, Lee J, Bang H, et al. Programmed cell death-ligand 1 expression predicts survival in patients with gastric carcinoma with microsatellite instability. Oncotarget. 2017;8:13320-8.
37.
Sohn BH, Hwang JE, Jang HJ, et al. Clinical Significance of Four Molecular Subtypes of Gastric Cancer Identified by The Cancer Genome Atlas Project, American Association for Cancer Research. Clin Cancer Res 2017; 23: 4441-4449.
38.
Kim J, Bowlby R, Mungall AJ, , et al. Integrated genomic characterization of oesophageal carcinoma. Nature 2017; 541: 169-175.
| eISSN: | 2084-9869 |
| ISSN: | 1233-9687 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
