Tumor DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency testing is important to the identification of Lynch syndrome and decision making regarding adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colorectal cancer (CRC) and has become an indispensable test in metastatic tumors due to the high efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in deficient MMR (dMMR) tumors. CRCs greatly benefit from this testing as approximately 15% of them are dMMR but only 3% to 5% are at a metastatic stage. MMR status can be determined by two different methods, microsatellite instability (MSI) testing on tumor DNA, and immunohistochemistry of the MMR proteins on tumor tissue. Recent studies have reported a rate of 3% to 10% of discordance between these two tests. Moreover, some reports suggest possible intra- and inter-tumoral heterogeneity of MMR and MSI status. These issues are important to know and to clarify in order to define therapeutic strategy in CRC. This review aims to detail the standard techniques used for the determination of MMR and MSI status, along with their advantages and limits. We review the discordances that may arise between these two tests, tumor heterogeneity of MMR and MSI status, and possible explanations. We also discuss the strategies designed to distinguish sporadic versus germline dMMR/MSI CRC. Finally, we present new and accurate methods aimed at determining MMR/MSI status.

No abstract

Mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and/or microsatellite instability-high (MSI) colorectal cancers (CRC) represent about 5% of metastatic CRC (mCRC). Prognosis and chemosensitivity of dMMR/MSI mCRC remain unclear. This multicenter study included consecutive patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC from 2007 to 2017. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) in a population receiving first-line chemotherapy. Associations between chemotherapy regimen and survival were evaluated using a Cox regression model and inverse of probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology in order to limit potential biases. Overall, 342 patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC were included. Median PFS and overall survival (OS) on first-line chemotherapy were 6.0 and 26.3 months, respectively. For second-line chemotherapy, median PFS and OS were 4.4 and 21.6 months. Longer PFS (8.1 vs. 5.4 months, p = 0.0405) and OS (35.1 vs. 24.4 months, p = 0.0747) were observed for irinotecan-based chemotherapy compared to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. The association was no longer statistically Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article. ratio; ICI: immune checkpoint inhibitors; IHC: immunohistochemistry; IPTW: inverse of probability of treatment weighting; mCRC: metastatic CRC; MSI: microsatellite instability; OS: overall survival; PFS: progression-free survival; pMMR: proficient mismatch repair; RR: response rate Tumor Markers and Signatures significant using IPTW methodology. In multivariable analysis, anti-VEGF as compared to anti-EGFR was associated with a trend to longer OS (HR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.00-3.19, p = 0.0518), whatever the backbone chemotherapy used. Our study shows that dMMR/MSI mCRC patients experienced short PFS with first-line chemotherapy with or without targeted therapy. OS was not different according to the chemotherapy regimen used, but a trend to better OS was observed with anti-VEGF. Our study provides some historical results concerning chemotherapy in dMMR/MSI mCRC in light of the recent nonrandomized trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors.What's new? Some reports suggest short overall survival (OS) and chemoresistance of mismatch repair-deficient and/or microsatellite instability-high metastatic colorectal cancers (dMMR/MSI mCRC). In a large multicenter series of dMMR/MSI mCRC we observed a relatively long OS but short progression-free survival. Irinotecan-based chemotherapy was not associated with better OS than oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy but anti-VEGF, as compared to anti-EGFR, was associated with a trend to longer OS. These results could help clinicians to choose treatment in patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC.

Background: The combination of capecitabine (CAP) with temozolomide (TEM) chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNET) relies on limited evidence. We compared TEM-CAP to TEM alone in patients with advanced PanNET. Methods: Consecutive patients with advanced PanNET treated with TEM or TEM-CAP between 2004 and 2017 in three expert centers were included. Progression-free survival (PFS), tolerance, tumor response, and overall survival were compared between the two groups. Propensity-based analyses were performed to reduce confounding bias due to the nonrandomized setting. Results: TEM and TEM-CAP were administered to 38 patients and 100 patients, respectively, with a median age of 58 years. The patients in the TEM group more often had hormonal syndromes (p = 0.03), a longer median delay to diagnosis (p = 0.001), and a higher number of pretreatment lines (p < 0.001). The performance status was 0 in 58% versus 65% of the patients, and tumor’s median Ki-67 index was 8% versus 11%, respectively. Tolerance was similar, except that there were more cases of asthenia in the TEM group (p = 0.017) and more cases of hand-foot syndrome in the TEM-CAP group (p = 0.025). The objective response rate was 34% versus 51% (p = 0.088). The raw median PFS was similar with TEM and with TEM-CAP (21.4 vs. 19.8 months, p = 0.84). Although CAP tended to decrease the risk of progression in Cox multivariate analysis (HR 0.65, p = 0.12), it had no effect after adjustment for the propensity score (HR 1.06, p = 0.80). Conclusions: TEM-CAP might not prolong PFS but might achieve a higher response rate than TEM alone. Hence, TEM-CAP might be preferred when tumor shrinkage is the main therapeutic objective. Otherwise, TEM might be adequate for patients with an impaired performance status or in case of extrahepatic metastases.

Background: DNA mismatch repair system deficiency (dMMR) is found in 15% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). Two methods are used to determine dMMR, immunohistochemistry (IHC) of MMR proteins and molecular testing of microsatellite instability (MSI). Only studies with a low number of patients have reported rates of discordance between these two methods, ranging from 1% to 10%. Materials and methods: Overall, 3228 consecutive patients with CRCs from two centers were included. Molecular testing was carried out using the Pentaplex panel and IHC evaluated four (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2; cohort 1; n ¼ 1085) or two MMR proteins (MLH1 and MSH2; cohort 2; n ¼ 2143). The primary endpoint was the rate of discordance between MSI and MMR IHC tests.Results: Fifty-one discordant cases (1.6%) were initially observed. Twenty-nine out of 51 discordant cases were related to IHC misclassifications. In cohort 1, after re-reading IHC and/or carrying out new IHC, 16 discordant cases were reclassified as nondiscordant. In cohort 2, after the addition of MSH6/PMS2 IHC and re-examination, 13 were reclassified as nondiscordant. In addition, 10 misclassifications of molecular tests were identified. Finally, only 12 discordant cases (0.4%) remained: 5 were proficient MMR/MSI and 7 were dMMR/microsatellite stable. Conclusions: Our study confirmed the high degree of concordance between MSI and MMR IHC tests. Discordant cases must be reviewed, and if needed, tests must be repeated and analyzed by an expert team.