Clinical significance of MET in gastric cancer

Table 3 MET gene alterations and clinical outcomes in gastric cancer

	n	Definition ofpositive expression	%	Relation toclinicopatho-logical factors	Relation to survival	Ref.
FISH	4601	GA	2.2	Stage	Worse	[39]
	196	GA	6.1	ND	Worse	[32]
	170	GA or HP	15 (GA7.1 HP7.6)	ND	ND	[38]
SISH	381	GA or HP	19 (GA3.4, HP16)	Intestinal (HP), M (GA), stage (GA)	Worse2 (GA)	[12]
RT-PCR	472	> 4 copies	21	NA	Worse2	[33]
	266	> 4 copies	1.5	NA	NA	[40]
	216	≥ 5 copies	10	Unknown	Worse2	[41]
	128	≥ 4 copies	30	T, stage	Worse2	[42]
	45	≥ 7 copies	7	ND	Worse	[18]
SNP array	193	GA	4	ND	ND	[44]
	100	GA	3	ND	ND	[43]
Polymorphism analysis	34 (tumor)	Any alterations	59	T, N, M	ND	[47]
	34 (serum)	Any alterations	41	N, M	ND	[47]

¹Esophagogastric adenocarcinoma;

²An independent prognostic factor on multivariate analysis. FISH: Fluorescence in situ hybridization; SISH: Silver in situ hybridization; RT-PCR: Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; SNP: Single nucleotide polymorphism; GA: Gene amplification; HP: High polysomy; ND: Not described; NA: Not associated; T: Tumor invasion depth; N: Lymph-node metastasis; M: Distant metastasis.