ArticleTurk patoloji dergisi2025
Comparative Analysis of Next-Generation Sequencing and Immunohistochemistry in MSI/MMR Testing.
Article in Turk patoloji dergisi, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLoss of mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression, assessed via immunohistochemistry (IHC), and microsatellite instability (MSI) status, determined through molecular methods, are two tumor-agnostic predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy eligibility. However, there remains no consensus on the preferred testing method, nor on the type and extent of molecular testing required for optimal patient selection. This study investigates the correlation between MMR protein loss detected by IHC and MSI status identified through next-generation sequencing (NGS) to evaluate the concordance and potential complementary roles of these methods. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 139 tumor samples were analyzed for MSI using NGS. The cohort included colorectal carcinoma (n=51), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (n=22), cholangiocarcinoma (n=9), non-small cell lung carcinoma (n=6), adenoid cystic carcinoma (n=6), gastric adenocarcinoma (n=6), high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (n=5), and 34 other tumor types. IHC was performed to assess MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 protein expression. The correlation between MSI status and MMR protein loss was evaluated.
resultsTwelve tumors (8.6%) were classified as MSI-High (microsatellite instable). Among them, ten exhibited MMR protein loss, whereas two MSI-High tumors (a mucinous adenocarcinoma of omental origin and a mucinous colon adenocarcinoma) retained MMR protein expression. No MMR-deficient tumors were identified as MSI-Low (microsatellite stable/MSS).
conclusionA strong correlation exists between IHC-based MMR loss and NGS-based MSI detection. IHC remains widely used due to its accessibility and cost-effectiveness, whereas NGS offers higher accuracy and broader genomic insights. With its ability to detect multiple alterations simultaneously, NGS is particularly valuable when tissue is scarce. Combining both methods can improve diagnostic accuracy and guide optimal immunotherapy selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.