Search

Background: Mismatch‐repair (MMR)/microsatellite instability (MSI) status has therapeutic implications in endometrial cancer (EC). The authors evaluated the concordance of testing and factors contributing to MMR expression heterogeneity. Methods: Six hundred sixty‐six ECs were characterized using immunohistochemistry (IHC), MSI testing, and mut‐L homolog 1 (MLH1) methylation. Select samples underwent whole‐transcriptome analysis and next‐generation sequencing. MMR expression of metastatic/recurrent sites was evaluated. Results: MSI testing identified 27.3% of cases as MSI‐high (n = 182), MMR IHC identified 25.1% cases as MMR‐deficient (n = 167), and 3.8% of cases (n = 25) demonstrated discordant results. A review of IHC staining explained discordant results in 18 cases, revealing subclonal loss of MLH1/Pms 1 homolog 2 (PMS2) (n = 10) and heterogeneous MMR IHC (mut‐S homolog 6 [MSH6], n = 7; MLH1/PMS2, n = 1). MSH6‐associated Lynch syndrome was diagnosed in three of six cases with heterogeneous expression. Subclonal or heterogeneous cases had a 38.9% recurrence rate (compared with 16.7% in complete MMR‐deficient cases and 9% in MMR‐proficient cases) and had abnormal MMR IHC results in all metastatic recurrent sites (n = 7). Tumors with subclonal MLH1/PMS2 demonstrated 74 differentially expressed genes (determined using digital spatial transcriptomics) when stratified by MLH1 expression, including many associated with epithelial–mesenchymal transition. Conclusions: Subclonal/heterogeneous MMR IHC cases showed epigenetic loss in 66.7%, germline mutations in 16.7%, and somatic mutations in 16.7%. MMR IHC reported as intact/deficient missed 21% of cases of Lynch syndrome. EC with subclonal/heterogeneous MMR expression demonstrated a high recurrence rate, and metastatic/recurrent sites were MMR‐deficient. Transcriptional analysis indicated an increased risk for migration/metastasis, suggesting that clonal MMR deficiency may be a driver for tumor aggressiveness. Reporting MMR IHC only as intact/deficient, without reporting subclonal and heterogeneous staining, misses opportunities for biomarker‐directed therapy. Plain Language Summary: Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic cancer, and 20%–40% of tumors have a defect in DNA proofreading known as mismatch‐repair (MMR) deficiency.These results can be used to guide therapy.Tests for this defect can yield differing results, revealing heterogeneous (mixed) proofreading capabilities.Tumors with discordant testing results and mixed MMR findings can have germline or somatic defects in MMR genes.Cells with deficient DNA proofreading in tumors with mixed MMR findings have DNA expression profiles linked to more aggressive characteristics and cancer spread.These MMR‐deficient cells may drive tumor behavior and the risk of spreading cancer. Intratumoral heterogeneity, including subclonal and heterogeneous mismatch‐repair (MMR) expression, can yield discordant results from diagnostic assays, such as immunohistochemistry and polymerase chain reaction‐based microsatellite instability testing. Within endometrial cancers, subclonal or heterogeneous MMR expression may be attributed to germline or somatic mutations in MMR proteins, and the authors demonstrate that these tumors are characterized by clonal selection favoring the propagation of MMR deficiency at sites of metastasis or recurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a reply to a previous article discussing the significance of tumors with "unusual staining" from mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC) in endometrial cancer. The authors agree that ongoing conversation and multiple testing strategies are needed to improve outcomes for patients. They also emphasize the importance of quality assurance in performing and interpreting MMR IHC, including uniform fixation and grossing protocols. The authors acknowledge the potential benefits of primary assessment of MMR IHC staining on biopsy specimens but note that in their cohort, preoperative biopsies were performed outside their institution and MMR IHC was not performed on these specimens. They also discuss the interpretation of MSI testing in endometrial cancer and the use of the Promega panel for clarifying cases that are MSI-low on the National Cancer Institute panel. Further research is needed to define optimal testing for MMR-deficient/MSI endometrial cancer and predict response to immunotherapy. [Extracted from the article]