Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Limited diagnostic value of microsatellite instability associated pathology features in colorectal cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Familial Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To determine the diagnostic test characteristics and inter-observer variation of pathology features for identifying high microsatellite instability (MSI-H) colorectal cancer (CRC). Six pathologists blindly evaluated 177 CRC for the presence of MSI-H associated pathology features. Inter-observer agreement was determined by using Kappa-statistics. In the first random 88/177 cases, mucinous carcinoma, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) and Crohns-like infiltrate (CLI) were the best discriminators between MSI-H and microsatellite stable CRC [OR 5.6 (95 % CI 1.7–19), 5.4 (1.8–17) and 3.5 (1.1–11), respectively], with high specificity (89–91 %). The sensitivities for MSI-H, however, were low (31–41 %). In addition, inter-observer agreement was moderate for TIL and CLI (κ 0.38 and 0.48, respectively), but very good for mucinous carcinoma (κ 0.86). Interpretation of overall histopathology as suggestive for MSI-H performed better than any individual feature; OR 15 (5.2–44), and area under the curve 0.79. However, inter-observer agreement was moderate (κ 0.53). In the second set, TIL and CLI were scored according to updated scoring systems. Although both remained the best individual discriminators, test characteristics and inter-observer agreement did not improve. MSI-H pathology features have moderate accuracy for identifying MSI-H CRC, and are identified with moderate inter-observer agreement. These findings highlight the limitations of clinical strategies, such as the revised Bethesda guidelines, which incorporate the MSI-H associated pathology features in their strategy to identify persons with lynch syndrome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aaltonen LA, Salovaara R, Kristo P et al (1998) Incidence of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer and the feasibility of molecular screening for the disease. N Engl J Med 338:1481–1487

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Moreira L, Balaguer F, Lindor N et al (2012) Identification of Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer. JAMA 308:1555–1565

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Watson P, Lynch HT (1993) Extracolonic cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Cancer 71:677–685

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jarvinen HJ, Aarnio M, Mustonen H et al (2000) Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 118:829–834

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP et al (2004) Revised Bethesda guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:261–268

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Boland CR, Shike M (2010) Report from the Jerusalem workshop on Lynch syndrome-hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 138(2197):e2191–e2197

    Google Scholar 

  7. Perez-Carbonell L, Ruiz-Ponte C, Guarinos C et al (2012) Comparison between universal molecular screening for Lynch syndrome and revised Bethesda guidelines in a large population-based cohort of patients with colorectal cancer. Gut 61:865–872

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jenkins MA, Hayashi S, O’Shea AM et al (2007) Pathology features in Bethesda guidelines predict colorectal cancer microsatellite instability: a population-based study. Gastroenterology 133:48–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kievit W, de Bruin JH, Adang EM et al (2005) Cost effectiveness of a new strategy to identify HNPCC patients. Gut 54:97–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. van Lier MG, Leenen CH, Wagner A et al (2012) Yield of routine molecular analyses in colorectal cancer patients ≤70 years to detect underlying Lynch syndrome. J Pathol 226:764–774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kastrinos F, Steyerberg EW, Mercado R et al (2012) The PREMM(1,2,6) model predicts risk of MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 germline mutations based on cancer history. Gastroenterology 140:73–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jass JR, Sobin LH (1989) Histological typing of intestinal tumours. WHO international histological classification of tumours, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 29–40

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. van Lier MG, Wagner A, van Leerdam ME et al (2010) A review on the molecular diagnostics of Lynch syndrome: a central role for the pathology laboratory. J Cell Mol Med 14:181–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sim J, Wright CC (2005) The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther 85:257–268

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Alexander J, Watanabe T, Wu TT et al (2001) Histopathological identification of colon cancer with microsatellite instability. Am J Pathol 158:527–535

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Shia J, Ellis NA, Paty PB et al (2003) Value of histopathology in predicting microsatellite instability in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer and sporadic colorectal cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 27:1407–1417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Smyrk TC, Watson P, Kaul K, Lynch HT (2001) Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes are a marker for microsatellite instability in colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 91:2417–2422

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Overbeek LI, Hoogerbrugge N, van Krieken JH et al (2008) Most patients with colorectal tumors at young age do not visit a cancer genetics clinic. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1249–1254

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Van Lier MG, De Wilt JH, Wagemakers JJ et al (2009) Underutilization of microsatellite instability analysis in colorectal cancer patients at high risk for Lynch syndrome. Scand J Gastroenterol 44:600–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Koch LH, Lampros JN, Delong LK et al (2009) Randomized comparison of virtual microscopy and traditional glass microscopy in diagnostic accuracy among dermatology and pathology residents. Hum Pathol 40:662–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sanders DS, Grabsch H, Harrison R et al (2012) Comparing virtual with conventional microscopy for the consensus diagnosis of Barrett’s neoplasia in the AspECT Barrett’s chemoprevention trial pathology audit. Histopathology 61:795–800

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul G. van Putten.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Putten, P.G., van Lier, M.G.F., Hage, M. et al. Limited diagnostic value of microsatellite instability associated pathology features in colorectal cancer. Familial Cancer 13, 351–359 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-014-9705-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-014-9705-8

Keywords

Navigation