Brodkin Jefim, Kaprio Tuomas, Hagström Jaana, Leppä Alli, Kokkola Arto, Haglund Caj, Böckelman Camilla
Translational Cancer Medicine Research Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, PO Box 340, Haartmaninkatu 4, Helsinki, HUS , FIN-00029, Finland.
Department of Surgery, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
BMC Cancer. 2024 Dec 2;24(1):1482. doi: 10.1186/s12885-024-13236-z.
Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the fourth most common cause of cancer-related death. Two molecular subtyping classifications were recently introduced: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the Asian Cancer Research Group (ACRG) classifications.
We classified a cohort of 283 gastric cancer patients undergoing surgery at Helsinki University Hospital between 2000 and 2009. We constructed a tumour tissue microarray immunostained for the following markers: microsatellite instability (MSI) markers MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2; p53; E-cadherin; and EBERISH.
In the univariate survival analysis for disease-specific survival, the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) -positive subtype exhibited the worst prognosis with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.49 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-5.25, p = 0.016) compared with the most benign subtype, chromosomal instability (CIN). Using TCGA's classification, the genetically stable (GS) and MSI subtypes exhibited a worse survival compared with CIN (HR 1.73 [95% CI 1.15-2.60], p = 0.009 and HR 1.74 [95% CI 1.06-2.84], p = 0.027, respectively). Using the ACRG classification, the p53 aberrant subtype exhibited the best prognosis, whereas wild-type p53, MSI, and the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) subtypes exhibited poorer prognoses (EMT: HR 1.90 [95% CI 1.30-2.77], p < 0.001) when compared with aberrant p53.
Immunohistochemical analysis can identify prognostically different molecular subtypes of gastric cancer. The method is inexpensive and fast, yet reveals significant information for clinical decision-making. However, our study did not find that either molecular subtyping performed better than the other classification. Thus, further development of the most optimal grouping of different molecular subtypes is still needed.
胃癌是全球第五大常见癌症,也是癌症相关死亡的第四大常见原因。最近引入了两种分子亚型分类:癌症基因组图谱(TCGA)分类和亚洲癌症研究小组(ACRG)分类。
我们对2000年至2009年间在赫尔辛基大学医院接受手术的283例胃癌患者进行了分类。我们构建了一个肿瘤组织微阵列,用以下标志物进行免疫染色:微卫星不稳定性(MSI)标志物MSH2、MSH6、MLH1和PMS2;p53;E-钙黏蛋白;以及EBERISH。
在疾病特异性生存的单变量生存分析中,与最良性的亚型染色体不稳定性(CIN)相比,爱泼斯坦-巴尔病毒(EBV)阳性亚型的预后最差,风险比(HR)为2.49(95%置信区间[CI]1.19-5.25,p = 0.016)。使用TCGA的分类,与CIN相比,基因稳定(GS)和MSI亚型的生存率较差(HR分别为1.73[95%CI 1.15-2.60],p = 0.009和HR 1.74[95%CI 1.06-2.84],p = 0.027)。使用ACRG分类,与p53异常亚型相比,p53异常亚型的预后最佳,而野生型p53、MSI和上皮-间质转化(EMT)亚型的预后较差(EMT:HR 1.90[95%CI 1.30-2.77],p < 0.001)。
免疫组织化学分析可以识别预后不同的胃癌分子亚型。该方法价格低廉且快速,但能为临床决策提供重要信息。然而,我们的研究并未发现哪种分子亚型分类比另一种分类表现更好。因此,仍需要进一步开发不同分子亚型的最佳分组。