Clinical significance of MET in gastric cancer

Table 1 MET protein expressions on immunohistochemistry and clinical outcomes in gastric cancer

	n	Definition of overexpression	%	Relation to clinicopathological factors	Relation to survival	Ref.
Usual IHC	495	2+/3+, > 10%	22	Intestinal type, recurrence	Worse3	[14]
	170	Cytoplasmic, 2+/3+	13	ND	ND	[38]
	121	≥ 5%	66	N, stage	Worse	[20]
	114	> 30%	74	NA	Worse3	[30]
	98	Intensity and extensity scoring system	59	N, M	Worse	[25]
	50		78	NA	NA	[28]
	38	2+/3+, ≥ 25%	63	Intestinal type	ND	[22]
	941	≥ 50%	50	NA	NA	[24]
	1212	Any staining	98	Liver metastasis	ND	[29]
TMA	438	Membranous, 2+/3+, > 10%	24	T, N, M, stage, intestinal type	Worse	[12]
	436	Intensity and extensity scoring system	44	T, N, M, diffuse type	Worse34	[13]
	215	Cytoplasmic, > 10%	69	NA	NA	[27]
	212	2+/3+	12	ND	Worse3	[32]
	182	Intensity and extensity scoring system	66	N, intestinal type, differentiated type	Worse	[19]
	163	Cytoplasmic 2+/3+ ≥ 10%, and positive > 75%	4	ND	Worse3	[31]
	124	Cytoplasmic, 3+	71	T, stage, intestinal type	ND	[23]
	114	Intensity and extensity scoring system	82	N, stage	Worse	[26]
	35		43	ND	Likely worse	[18]

¹Limited to diffuse or mixed type;

²Only stage IV;

³An independent prognostic factor on multivariate analysis;

⁴Only IHC3+. IHC: Immunohistochemistry; TMA; Tissue micro array; T: Tumor invasion depth; N: Lymph-node metastasis; M: Distant metastasis; ND: Not described; NA: Not associated.