Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Stage III Colorectal Cancer: Molecular Disparity Between Primary Cancers and Lymph Node Metastases

  • Colorectal Cancer
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Colorectal cancers (CRCs) may be classified according to underlying genetic and epigenetic changes including microsatellite instability (MSI) and the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP). However the relevance of these molecular characteristics, which are being increasingly used to guide adjuvant therapy, has not been defined for metastatic disease. Since adjunct chemotherapy is designed to prevent or target metastases, molecular characteristics of metastatic disease are relevant. This study evaluates molecular differences between primary colorectal cancers and matched lymph node (LN) metastases.

Methods

An Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved, prospectively maintained, frozen tissue biobank was queried for stage III CRCs previously analyzed for MSI and CIMP. Metastatic cancer-containing LNs from the same patients were retrieved from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues. DNA was isolated from matched primary tumors and LNs, tested for MSI and CIMP, and the results were compared.

Results

Forty-seven matched LNs from 47 CRC cases were available. Six of 47 primary tumors and 8/47 (17%) LNs were MSI-H (p = 0.25). Thirteen of 47 (28%) primary tumors and 6/47 (13%) LNs were CIMP+ (p < 0.02). Eight patients displayed nine disparities between their primary tumors and LNs: two for MSI and seven for CIMP. Interestingly, of the 13 CIMP+ primary tumors, seven had LN metastases that were CIMP negative.

Conclusions

Molecular characterization, notably the CpG island methylator phenotype, varies between primary tumors and corresponding lymphatic metastases. Although the mechanism for this is unknown, this finding suggests that molecular typing of LNs as well as primary tumors should be considered for molecular-based adjuvant therapy decisions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jass JR. Classification of colorectal cancer based on correlation of clinical, morphological and molecular features. Histopathology. 2007;50:113–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fearon ER, Vogelstein B. A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell. 1990;61:759–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Soreide K, Janssen EA, Soiland H, Korner H, Baak JP. Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2006;93:395–406.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Suraweera N, Duval A, Reperant M, et al. Evaluation of tumor microsatellite instability using five quasimonomorphic mononucleotide repeats and pentaplex PCR. Gastroenterology. 2002;123:1804–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bronner CE, Baker SM, Morrison PT, et al. Mutation in the DNA mismatch repair gene homologue hMLH1 is associated with hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer. Nature. 1994;368:258–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Leach FS, Nicolaides NC, Papadopoulos N, et al. Mutations of a mutS homolog in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Cell. 1993;75:1215–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Samowitz WS, Albertsen H, Herrick J, et al. Evaluation of a large, population-based sample supports a CpG island methylator phenotype in colon cancer. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:837–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Aaltonen LA, Peltomaki P, Leach FS, et al. Clues to the pathogenesis of familial colorectal cancer. Science. 1993;260:812–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dumitrescu RG. Epigenetic targets in cancer epidemiology. Methods Mol Biol. 2009;471:457–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kondo Y, Issa JP. Epigenetic changes in colorectal cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2004;23:29–39.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Toyota M, Ohe-Toyota M, Ahuja N, Issa JP. Distinct genetic profiles in colorectal tumors with or without the CpG island methylator phenotype. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97:710–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Baylin SB, Herman JG, Graff JR, Vertino PM, Issa JP. Alterations in DNA methylation: a fundamental aspect of neoplasia. Adv Cancer Res. 1998;72:141–96.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Baylin SB, Ohm JE. Epigenetic gene silencing in cancer—a mechanism for early oncogenic pathway addiction? Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6:107–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim YH, Petko Z, Dzieciatkowski S, et al. CpG island methylation of genes accumulates during the adenoma progression step of the multistep pathogenesis of colorectal cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2006;45:781–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Boland CR, Goel A. Somatic evolution of cancer cells. Semin Cancer Biol. 2005;15:436–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ogino S, Meyerhardt JA, Kawasaki T, et al. CpG island methylation, response to combination chemotherapy, and patient survival in advanced microsatellite stable colorectal carcinoma. Virchows Arch. 2007;450:529–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ogino S, Nosho K, Kirkner GJ, et al. CpG island methylator phenotype, microsatellite instability, BRAF mutation and clinical outcome in colon cancer. Gut. 2009;58:90–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ribic CM, Sargent DJ, Moore MJ, et al. Tumor microsatellite-instability status as a predictor of benefit from fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:247–57.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Shen L, Catalano PJ, Benson AB, III, O’Dwyer P, Hamilton SR, Issa JP. Association between DNA methylation and shortened survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with 5-fluorouracil based chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:6093–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Van Rijnsoever M, Elsaleh H, Joseph D, McCaul K, Iacopetta B. CpG island methylator phenotype is an independent predictor of survival benefit from 5-fluorouracil in stage III colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9:2898–903.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kalady MF, Sanchez JA, Manilich E, Hammel J, Casey G, Church JM. Divergent oncogenic changes influence survival differences between colon and rectal adenocarcinomas. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:1039–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. de la Chapelle A. Testing tumors for microsatellite instability. Eur J Hum Genet. 1999;7:407–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Haddad R, Ogilvie RT, Croitoru M, et al. Microsatellite instability as a prognostic factor in resected colorectal cancer liver metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004;11:977–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Eads CA, Danenberg KD, Kawakami K, et al. MethyLight: a high-throughput assay to measure DNA methylation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28:E32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Weisenberger DJ, Siegmund KD, Campan M, et al. CpG island methylator phenotype underlies sporadic microsatellite instability and is tightly associated with BRAF mutation in colorectal cancer. Nat Genet. 2006;38:787–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Trinh BN, Long TI, Laird PW. DNA methylation analysis by MethyLight technology. Methods. 2001;25:456–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen WS, Chen JY, Liu JM, et al. Microsatellite instability in sporadic-colon-cancer patients with and without liver metastases. Int J Cancer. 1997;74:470–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bird AP, Wolffe AP. Methylation-induced repression–belts, braces, and chromatin. Cell. 1999;99:451–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Drake JW. Comparative rates of spontaneous mutation. Nature. 1969;221:1132.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Aranda-Anzaldo A. Cancer development and progression: a non-adaptive process driven by genetic drift. Acta Biotheor. 2001;49:89–108.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Karpf AR, Jones DA. Reactivating the expression of methylation silenced genes in human cancer. Oncogene. 2002;21:5496–503.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Schuebel KE, Chen W, Cope L, et al. Comparing the DNA hypermethylome with gene mutations in human colorectal cancer. PLoS Genet. 2007;3:e157.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Scheel C, Onder T, Karnoub A, Weinberg RA. Adaptation versus selection: the origins of metastatic behavior. Cancer Res. 2007;67:11476–9; discussion 9–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Graff JR, Gabrielson E, Fujii H, Baylin SB, Herman JG. Methylation patterns of the E-cadherin 5’ CpG island are unstable and reflect the dynamic, heterogeneous loss of E-cadherin expression during metastatic progression. J Biol Chem. 2000;275:2727–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Wu JM, Fackler MJ, Halushka MK, et al. Heterogeneity of breast cancer metastases: comparison of therapeutic target expression and promoter methylation between primary tumors and their multifocal metastases. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:1938–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Boland CR, Thibodeau SN, Hamilton SR, et al. A National Cancer Institute workshop on microsatellite instability for cancer detection and familial predisposition: development of international criteria for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 1998;58:5248–57.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Pyatt R, Chadwick RB, Johnson CK, Adebamowo C, de la Chapelle A, Prior TW. Polymorphic variation at the BAT-25 and BAT-26 loci in individuals of African origin. Implications for microsatellite instability testing. Am J Pathol. 1999;155:349–53.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Samowitz WS, Slattery ML, Potter JD, Leppert MF. BAT-26 and BAT-40 instability in colorectal adenomas and carcinomas and germline polymorphisms. Am J Pathol. 1999;154:1637–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Sanchez J, Aung PP, Merkulova A, et al. Genetic and epigenetic classifications define clinical phenotypes and determine patient outcomes in colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009; accepted for publication.

  40. Harbeck N, Nimmrich I, Hartmann A, et al. Multicenter study using paraffin-embedded tumor tissue testing PITX2 DNA methylation as a marker for outcome prediction in tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5036–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Craig A. Messick MD & James M. Church MB, ChB

  2. Department of Anatomic Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Xiuli Liu MD, PhD

  3. Genomic Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Angela H. Ting PhD & Matthew F. Kalady MD

Authors
  1. Craig A. Messick MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James M. Church MB, ChB
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiuli Liu MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Angela H. Ting PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthew F. Kalady MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Craig A. Messick MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Messick, C.A., Church, J.M., Liu, X. et al. Stage III Colorectal Cancer: Molecular Disparity Between Primary Cancers and Lymph Node Metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 17, 425–431 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0783-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0783-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation