We verified that the frequency of MSI was similar in familial and sporadic GC settings, demonstrating that this molecular phenotype is not a hallmark of familial GC in contrast to what is verified in HNPCC.
Four disease groups and their healthy family members were assembled according to the presentation of gastric cancer: FG, familial clustering of gastric cancer (n = 32); CG, family with one or more colorectal and gastric cancers in first-degree relatives (n = 22); HS, seven HNPCC families corresponding to the Amsterdam criteria (AMS+) and 12 suspected HNPCC families which did not satisfy one of the criteria (AMS-), but no gastric cancer among first- and second-degree relatives (n = 19); and SG, sporadic gastric cancer (n = 33).
Furthermore, some of the known clinicopathologic features of MSI+ GC, including older age of onset, ulcerofungating gross morphology, and antral location, are not typical of MSI+ GC without MLH1 methylation.
We also observed a reduction of MSI phenotype after aspirin or sulindac treatment in a hMLH1-defective gastric cancer cell line SNU-1, which lacks COX-2 expression.Int.J.Cancer (Pred.Oncol.)84:400-403, 1999.
Examples of genes involved in pathogenesis of GC include p53, adenomatous polyposis coli (APC), beta-catenin, E-cadherin, transforming growth factor (TGF)-betaRII, and hMLH1.
Using methylation specific PCR we investigated the methylation status of the hMLH1 gene promoter in 17 solitary gastric cancers (12 microsatellite instability-H and five microsatellite stable tumours from 17 patients), and 13 multiple gastric cancers (eight microsatellite instability-H, one low frequency microsatellite instability-L and four microsatellite stable tumours from five patients) and also examined non-cancerous gastric mucosa both adjacent to and distant from each tumour.
Families with clinical diagnosis of HNPCC (i.e. family history which fulfills the Amsterdam I/II criteria) was the strongest predictor for finding a deleterious mutation, and stomach cancer was the most commonly reported extra-colonic cancer in families found with a deleterious MLH1 or MSH2 mutation.
Previously, we suggested that HM in the proximal region of the hMLH1 promoter plays a critical role in progression of gastric cancer with MSI and this specific region should be analyzed for diagnostic use of hMLH1 HM.
Five different classes of methylation behaviors were found: (1) genes methylated in GC only (GSTP1 and RASSF1A); (2) genes showing low methylation frequency (<12%) in CG, IM, and GA, but significantly higher methylation frequency in GC (COX-2, hMLH1, and p16); (3) a gene with low and similar methylation frequency (8.8-21.3%) in four-step lesions (MGMT); (4) genes with high and similar methylation frequency (53-85%) in four-step lesions (APC and E-cadherin); and (5) genes showing an increasing tendency with or without fluctuation of the methylation frequency along the progression (DAP-kinase, p14, THBS1, and TIMP3).
The complete association between HM in hMLH1-C and MSI phenotype with gastric cancer provides an alternative diagnostic tool for detecting a favorable prognostic subgroup with MSI by using simple methylation analysis.
To determine genetic alterations in familial gastric cancers (FGC, we examined replication error using eight microsatellite DNA markers, and screened mutations in the hMSH2, hMLH1 and TGF-beta RII genes in six cases from four FGC kindreds.
Therefore, detection of hMLH1 methylation in nonneoplastic gastric epithelia may be useful for screening patients who may be at risk of developing gastric cancer.
The DNA methylation occurred in promoter regions of both Reprimo and hMLH1 genes depressed the protein expression, and may participate in the occurrence and progression and gastric cancer.
One hundred and sixty-five GCs were classified into five subgroups using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in situ hybridization (ISH) methods, based on a panel of seven markers (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, MSH6, E-cadherin, P53, and Epstein-Barr virus mRNA).