AIM: To investigate the genotype frequencies of MLH1 promoter polymorphism -93G>A and to determine whether it could play any role in modulating familial and sporadic CRC susceptibility risk.
METHODS: A case-control study comprising of 104 histopathologically confirmed CRC patients as cases (52 sporadic CRC and 52 Lynch syndrome patients) and 104 normal healthy individuals as controls was undertaken. DNA was extracted from peripheral blood and the polymorphism was genotyped employing PCR-RFLP methods. The genotypes were categorized into homozygous wild type, heterozygous and homozygous variants. The risk association between these polymorphisms and CRC susceptibility risk was calculated using binary logistic regression analysis and deriving odds ratios (ORs).
RESULTS: When risk association was investigated for all CRC patients as a single group, the heterozygous (G/A) genotype showed a significantly higher risk for CRC susceptibility with an OR of 2.273, (95%CI: 1.133-4.558 and p-value=0.021). When analyzed specifically for the 2 types of CRC, the heterozygous (G/A) genotype showed significantly higher risk for sporadic CRC susceptibility with and OR of 3.714, (95%CI: 1.416-9.740 and p-value=0.008). Despite high OR value was observed for Lynch syndrome (OR: 1.600, 95%CI: 0.715-3.581), the risk was not statistically significant (P=0.253).
CONCLUSION: Our results suggest an influence of MLH1 promoter polymorphism -93G>A in modulating susceptibility risk in Malaysian CRC patients, especially those with sporadic disease.
METHODS: Fifty selected CRC cases of deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) and proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) which were identified immunohistochemically in the previous study were subjected to MSI analysis. MSI Analysis System 1.2 (Promega) was utilized.
RESULTS: The results of MSI analysis method showed MSI-High: 26% (13/50), MSI-Low: 6% (3/50), and Microsatellite Stable: 68% (34/50). The concordance was perfect (0.896, Kappa value) between MSI analysis and IHC methods for the assessment of MMR/MSI status in CRC patients. The discordance was only 4% (2/50). MSI analysis identified all dMMR cases determined by IHC except one case. The obtained frequency of dMMR and pMMR patients was 11.4% (14/123) and 88.6% (109/123) by IHC method, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Our findings support the universal practice of evaluating the MMR/MSI status in all newly diagnosed CRC patients. Based on the perfect concordance of two methods, the method of choice is based on the availability of expertise and equipments. IHC is highly appreciable method due to its feasibility and reproducibility.