Tumor budding is a well-established independent prognostic factor in colorectal cancer but a standardized method for its assessment has been lacking. The primary aim of the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) was to reach agreement on an international, evidence-based standardized scoring system for tumor budding in colorectal cancer.The ITBCC included 9 sessions with presentations, a pre-meeting survey, and an e-book covering the key publications on tumor budding in colorectal cancer. The "Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation" method was used to determine the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence.

Failure of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by transient elastography (TE, FibroScan) and unreliable results occur in %5% and 15% of patients, respectively, mainly due to obesity. In this multicenter study, we evaluated the feasibility and performance of the novel FibroScan XL probe in 276 patients with chronic liver disease (42% viral hepatitis, 46% nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD]) and a body mass index (BMI) !28 kg/m 2 . Patients underwent liver biopsy and TE with the standard M and XL probes. TE failure was defined as no valid LSMs and unreliable examinations as <10 valid LSMs or an interquartile range (IQR)/LSM >30% or success rate <60%. Probe performance for diagnosing !F2 fibrosis and cirrhosis (F4) versus biopsy were examined using areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC). FibroScan failure was less frequent with the XL probe than the M probe (1.1% versus 16%) and the XL probe was more often reliable (73% versus 50%; both P < 0.00005). Reliable results with the XL probe were obtained in 61% of patients in whom the M probe was unreliable. Among 178 patients with !10 valid LSMs using both probes, liver stiffness was highly correlated between probes (q 5 0.86; P < 0.0005); however, median liver stiffness was lower using the XL probe (6.8 versus 7.8 kPa; P < 0.00005). The AUROC of the XL and M probes were similar for !F2 fibrosis (0.83 versus 0.86; P 5 0.19) and cirrhosis (0.94 versus 0.91; P 5 0.28). Conclusion: Compared with the M probe, the FibroScan XL probe reduces TE failure and facilitates reliable LSM in obese patients. Although the probes have comparable accuracy, lower liver stiffness cutoffs will be necessary when the XL probe is used to noninvasively assess liver fibrosis.

Neoplastic cells recruit fibroblasts through various growth factors and cytokines. These “cancer-associated fibroblasts” (CAF) actively interact with neoplastic cells and form a myofibroblastic microenvironment that promotes cancer growth and survival and supports malignancy. Several products of their paracrine signaling repertoire have been recognized as tumor growth and metastasis regulators. However, tumor-promoting cell signaling is not the only reason that makes CAFs key components of the “tumor microenvironment,” as CAFs affect both the architecture and growth mechanics of the developing tumor. CAFs participate in the remodeling of peritumoral stroma, which is a prerequisite of neoplastic cell invasion, expansion, and metastasis. CAFs are not present peritumorally as individual cells but they act orchestrated to fully deploy a desmoplastic program, characterized by “syncytial” (or collective) configuration and altered cell adhesion properties. Such myofibroblastic cohorts are reminiscent of those encountered in wound-healing processes. The view of “cancer as a wound that does not heal” led to useful comparisons between wound healing and tumorigenesis and expanded our knowledge of the role of CAF cohorts in cancer. In this integrative model of cancer invasion and metastasis, we propose that the CAF-supported microenvironment has a dual tumor-promoting role. Not only does it provide essential signals for cancer cell dedifferentiation, proliferation, and survival but it also facilitates cancer cell local invasion and metastatic phenomena.