Advertisement

Elevated Microsatellite Alterations at Selected Tetranucleotides (EMAST) in Colorectal Cancer is Associated with an Elderly, Frail Phenotype and Improved Recurrence-Free Survival

  • Martin M. Watson
  • Arezo Kanani
  • Dordi Lea
  • Ramesh B. Khajavi
  • Jon Arne Søreide
  • Hartwig Kørner
  • Hanne R. Hagland
  • Kjetil SøreideEmail author
Translational Research and Biomarkers
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Elevated microsatellite alterations at selected tetranucleotides (EMAST) is a poorly investigated form of microsatellite instability (MSI) in colorectal cancer (CRC).

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinicopathological features of EMAST in CRC and its relation to outcome.

Methods

A population-based, consecutive cohort of surgically treated stage I–III CRC patients investigated for high-frequency MSI (MSI-H) and EMAST. Clinicopathological differences were reported as odds ratios (OR) and survival was presented as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Of 161 patients included, 25% were aged > 79 years. There was a large overlap in the prevalence of EMAST (31.7%) and MSI-H (27.3%) [82.4% of EMAST were also MSI-H]. EMAST had the highest prevalence in the proximal colon (OR 15.9, 95% CI 5.6–45.1; p < 0.001) and in women (OR 4.1, 95% CI 1.9–8.6; p < 0.001), and were poorly differentiated (OR 5.0, 95% CI 2.3–10.7; p < 0.001). Compared with EMAST-negative patients, EMAST-positive patients were older (median age 77 vs. 69 years; p < 0.001), leaner (median weight 67.5 vs. 77 kg; p = 0.001), had significantly higher rates of hypoalbuminemia (24% vs. 6%; OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.5–3.6; p = 0.002) and anemia (45% vs. 20%; OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.6–6.8; p = 0.001), and had elevated preoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (51% vs. 34%; OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0–3.9; p = 0.046). Improved recurrence-free survival was found in both MSI-H and EMAST subtypes. In multivariable analysis, node status (pN +), together with elevated CRP and MSI-positive, were the strongest prognostic factors for recurrence-free survival.

Conclusions

EMAST in CRC is associated with an older, leaner, and frailer phenotype with a lower risk of recurrence. The relevance of, and putative mechanisms to, EMAST warrants further investigation.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The QiaCUBE instrument was generously donated by the Hartman Family Fund.

Funding

This study was funded by the Folke Hermansen Cancer Fund, an unrestricted grant from the Mjaaland Foundation, and from the University Fund at the University of Stavanger.

Disclosures

Martin M. Watson, Arezo Kanani, Dordi Lea, Ramesh B. Khajavi, Jon Arne Søreide, Hartwig Kørner, Hanne R. Hagland, and Kjetil Søreide declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Boland CR, Goel A. Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2010;138(6):2073–87.e3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP, et al. Revised Bethesda Guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Ins. 2004;96(4):261–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drake TM, Soreide K. Cancer epigenetics in solid organ tumours: A primer for surgical oncologists. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(5):736–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sinicrope FA. Lynch syndrome—associated colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(8):764–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gupta R, Sinha S, Paul RN. The impact of microsatellite stability status in colorectal cancer. Curr Probl Cancer. 2018;42(6):548–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim CG, Ahn JB, Jung M, et al. Effects of microsatellite instability on recurrence patterns and outcomes in colorectal cancers. Br J Cancer. 2016;115(1):25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park JH, Powell AG, Roxburgh CSD, Horgan PG, McMillan DC, Edwards J. Mismatch repair status in patients with primary operable colorectal cancer: associations with the local and systemic tumour environment. Br J Cancer. 2016;114(5):562–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Network TCGA. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature. 2012;487(7407):330–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guinney J, Dienstmann R, Wang X, et al. The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer. Nature Med. 2015;21(11):1350–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim TM, Laird PW, Park PJ. The landscape of microsatellite instability in colorectal and endometrial cancer genomes. Cell. 2013;155(4):858–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Watson MMC, Berg M, Søreide K. Prevalence and implications of elevated microsatellite alterations at selected tetranucleotides in cancer. Br J Cancer. 2014;111(5):823–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elm Ev, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ (Clin Res Ed.). 2007;335(7624):806–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Søreide K, Watson MM, Lea D, Nordgård O, Søreide JA, Hagland HR. Assessment of clinically related outcomes and biomarker analysis for translational integration in colorectal cancer (ACROBATICC): study protocol for a population-based, consecutive cohort of surgically treated colorectal cancers and resected colorectal liver metastasis. J Transl Med. 2016;14(1):192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A. AJCC cancer staging manual 7th ed: colon and rectum. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watson MM, Lea D, Rewcastle E, Hagland HR, Soreide K. Elevated microsatellite alterations at selected tetranucleotides in early-stage colorectal cancers with and without high-frequency microsatellite instability: same, same but different? Cancer Med. 2016;5(7):1580–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Suraweera N, Duval A, Reperant M, et al. Evaluation of tumor microsatellite instability using five quasimonomorphic mononucleotide repeats and pentaplex PCR. Gastroenterology. 2002;123(6):1804–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aunan JR, Cho WC, Søreide K. The biology of aging and cancer: a brief overview of shared and divergent molecular hallmarks. Aging Dis. 2017;8(5):628–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aunan JR, Watson MM, Hagland HR, Søreide K. Molecular and biological hallmarks of ageing. Br J Surg. 2016;103(2):e29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lai C-C, You J-F, Yeh C-Y, et al. Low preoperative serum albumin in colon cancer: a risk factor for poor outcome. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26(4):473–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shahrokni A, Tin A, Alexander K, et al. Development and evaluation of a new frailty index for older surgical patients with cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(5):e193545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chow WB, Rosenthal RA, Merkow RP, Ko CY, Esnaola NF. Optimal preoperative assessment of the geriatric surgical patient: a best practices guideline from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the American Geriatrics Society. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215(4):453–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wildiers H, Heeren P, Puts M, et al. International Society of Geriatric Oncology consensus on geriatric assessment in older patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(24):2595–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Domingo E, Camps C, Kaisaki PJ, et al. Mutation burden and other molecular markers of prognosis in colorectal cancer treated with curative intent: results from the QUASAR 2 clinical trial and an Australian community-based series. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;3(9):635–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Toh J, Chapuis PH, Bokey L, Chan C, Spring KJ, Dent OF. Competing risks analysis of microsatellite instability as a prognostic factor in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2017;104(9):1250–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dienstmann R, Mason MJ, Sinicrope FA, et al. Prediction of overall survival in stage II and III colon cancer beyond TNM system: a retrospective, pooled biomarker study. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(5):1023–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oh CR, Kim JE, Kang J, et al. Prognostic value of the microsatellite instability status in patients with stage II/III rectal cancer following upfront surgery. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2018;17(4):e679–e685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee S-Y, Chung H, Devaraj B, et al. Microsatellite alterations at selected tetranucleotide repeats are associated with morphologies of colorectal neoplasias. Gastroenterology. 2010;139(5):1519–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Haugen AC, Goel A, Yamada K, et al. Genetic instability caused by loss of MutS homologue 3 in human colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 2008;68(20):8465–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee HS, Park KU, Kim DW, et al. Elevated microsatellite alterations at selected tetranucleotide repeats (EMAST) and microsatellite instability in patients with colorectal cancer and its clinical features. Curr Mol Med. 2016;16(9):829–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Venderbosch S, van Lent-van Vliet S, Haan AFJd, et al. EMAST is associated with a poor prognosis in microsatellite instable metastatic colorectal cancer. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(4):e0124538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koi M, Tseng-Rogenski SS, Carethers JM. Inflammation-associated microsatellite alterations: Mechanisms and significance in the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2018;10(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li J, Koike J, Kugoh H, et al. Down-regulation of MutS homolog 3 by hypoxia in human colorectal cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1823(4):889–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tseng-Rogenski S, Hamaya Y, Choi DY, Carethers JM. Interleukin 6 Alters Localization of hMSH3, Leading to DNA Mismatch Repair Defects in Colorectal Cancer Cells. Gastroenterology. 2015;148(3):579–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tseng-Rogenski SS, Chung H, Wilk MB, Zhang S, Iwaizumi M, Carethers JM. Oxidative stress induces nuclear-to-cytosol shift of hMSH3, a potential mechanism for EMAST in colorectal cancer cells. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(11):e50616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Campregher C, Schmid G, Ferk F, et al. MSH3-deficiency initiates EMAST without oncogenic transformation of human colon epithelial cells. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(11):e50541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Venderbosch S, van Lent-van Vliet S, de Haan AF, et al. EMAST is associated with a poor prognosis in microsatellite instable metastatic colorectal cancer. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(4):e0124538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chen MH, Chang SC, Lin PC, et al. Combined microsatellite instability and elevated microsatellite alterations at selected tetranucleotide repeats (EMAST) might be a more promising immune biomarker in colorectal cancer. Oncologist.  https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0171
  38. 38.
    Carethers JM, Jung BH. Genetics and genetic biomarkers in sporadic colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(5):1177–90.e1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee DW, Han SW, Kang JK, et al. Association between Fusobacterium nucleatum, pathway mutation, and patient prognosis in colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(11):3389–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gastrointestinal Translational Research Unit, Laboratory for Molecular BiologyStavanger University HospitalStavangerNorway
  2. 2.Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryStavanger University HospitalStavangerNorway
  3. 3.Department of Clinical MedicineUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  4. 4.Department of PathologyStavanger University HospitalStavangerNorway
  5. 5.Department of Chemistry, Bioscience and Environmental TechnologyUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations