A collaborative review of the microsatellite instability/deficient mismatch repair phenotype in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma

Abstract

ObjectiveTo perform a collaborative review of the literature exploring the microsatellite instability/deficient mismatch repair (MSI/dMMR) phenotype in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC).MethodA collaborative review of the literature available on Medline was conducted by the Cancer Committee of the French Association of Urology to report studies describing the genetic mechanisms, investigation, prevalence and impact of the MSI/dMMR phenotype in UTUC patients.ResultsThe predominant genetic mechanism leading to the MSI/dMMR phenotype in UTUC patients is related to the constitutional mutation of one allele of the MMR genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2 within Lynch syndrome. Indications for its investigation currently remain limited to patients with a clinical suspicion for sporadic UTUC to refer only those with a positive testing for germline DNA sequencing to screen for this syndrome. With regard to technical aspects, despite the interest of MSIsensor, only PCR and immunohistochemistry are routinely used to somatically investigate the MSI and dMMR phenotypes, respectively. The prevalence of the MSI/dMMR phenotype in UTUC patients ranges from 1.7% to 57%, depending on the study population, investigation method and definition of a positive test. Younger age and a more balanced male to female ratio at initial diagnosis are the main specific clinical characteristics of UTUC patients with an MSI/dMMR phenotype. Despite the conflicting results available in the literature, these patients may have a better prognosis, potentially related to more favourable pathological features. Finally, they may also have lower sensitivity to chemotherapy but greater sensitivity to immunotherapy.ConclusionOur collaborative review summarises the available data from published studies exploring the MSI/dMMR phenotype in UTUC patients, the majority of which are limited by a low level of evidence.