Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cohort study reveals diverse molecular drivers of mismatch repair deficiency in upper gastrointestinal cancers, highlighting the need for multimodal testing to improve Lynch syndrome screening.
Context.—: Mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd) is a key diagnostic and predictive biomarker, yet its mechanisms in upper gastrointestinal (UGI) and pancreaticobiliary (PB) malignancies remain incompletely defined. Objective.—: To evaluate real-world clinical practices and multimodal molecular assessments of MMRd UGI and PB malignancies at a tertiary academic medical center. Design.—: We analyzed 91 MMRd UGI and PB cancers from 90 patients. MMRd immunohistochemistry (IHC) patterns and use of ancillary molecular tests (MSI-PCR, MLH1 promoter methylation, germline testing, and tumor next-generation sequencing [NGS]) were reviewed. Results.—: The most common primary sites were stomach (40 of 91; 44%), esophageal (15 of 91; 16%), and small bowel carcinoma (11 of 91; 12%), with pancreatic (8 of 91; 9%), biliary tract (7 of 91; 8%), and ampullary (4 of 91; 4%) carcinomas less frequent. Paired MLH1 of PMS2 loss was the predominant MMRd IHC pattern (71 of 91, 78%), followed by unusual patterns of loss (11 of 91, 12%), and paired MSH2 of MSH6 loss (9 of 91, 10%). Among the subset with MSI testing, MMRd by IHC and MSI were discordant in 16% (3 of 19) of cases. MLH1 promoter methylation was present in 80% (37 of 46) of the tested MLH1 of PMS2-deleted tumors. Lynch syndrome (LS) was identified in 17% (6 of 36) of patients with genetic testing. In addition, somatic MMR gene variants were identified in 43% (9 of 21) of tumors sequenced by NGS. Conclusions.—: MMRd in UGI and PB cancers arises from diverse mechanisms, including MLH1 promoter methylation, somatic MMR gene alterations, and LS. A multimodal approach integrating IHC, MSI-PCR, tumor NGS, and MLH1 promoter methylation is essential for accurate biomarker characterization and optimized LS screening.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Davidson et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: