Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective cohort study analyzes ARID1A, SMARCA4, and EMT markers in gastric adenocarcinoma, suggesting key prognostic indicators.
Aims Our study investigated the clinical and pathological features of gastric solid-type poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (PDA) along with the prognostic significance of ARID1A (AT-rich interactive domain 1A), SMARCA4, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) markers in it. Methods We retrospectively evaluated 116 patients with primary gastric solid-type PDA, and patients were categorized according to deficient or proficient mismatch repair (MMR) status (51 and 65 patients, respectively). The expression of ARID1A, SMARCA4, and EMT markers (E-cadherin, β-catenin, vimentin, and SNAI1) was analyzed via immunohistochemistry, and the levels were assigned to the aberrant/retained or normal expression groups. The associations between the expression of ARID1A, SMARCA4, and EMT markers, clinicopathological characteristics, and prognostic impact were examined. Results Proficient MMR was associated with ARID1A-retained status ( P < .001), negative E-cadherin and β-catenin, and positive SNAI1 ( P = .033, P = .003, and P = .008, respectively) in contrast to deficient MMR. Log-rank analysis revealed that the combination of ARID1A-retained and SMARCA4-aberrant status indicated significantly lower disease-free survival and overall survival rates than ARID1A-aberrant and SMARCA4-retained group ( P < .001, P < .001, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that the combination of ARID1A-retained and SMARCA4-aberrant status was an independent indicator of unfavorable prognosis (hazard ratio = 4.784, P < .001). Conclusions ARID1A-retained status and expression of aberrant EMT markers (E-cadherin, β-catenin, and SNAI1) are more frequently observed in proficient-MMR in solid-type PDA. ARID1A-retained and SMARCA4-aberrant status can be considered a useful indicator of unfavorable prognosis in gastric solid-type PDA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Umekita et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: