A new simple morphology‐based risk score is prognostic in stage I/II colon cancers

Märkl, Bruno; Märkl, Maximilian; Schaller, Tina; Mayr, N. Patrick; Schenkirsch, Gerhard; Kriening, Bernadette; Anthuber, Matthias

doi:10.1002/cam4.737

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This fact may suggest extending the notion of relapse risk for T2 tumors similar to those in stage II (T3 and T4 with high risk), for which adjuvant chemotherapy is necessary (4,22).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Intestinal occlusion at the time of diagnosis does not highlight different survival curves compared to patients with scheduled surgery, literature showing divergent opinions in this matter (4,8).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In the literature there is still debate surrounding the usefulness of chemotherapy for this patients (3,4,6,8,10,15,20).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Colorectal cancer represents one of the most frequent types of cancer with approximately 1,36 million new cases every year around the world (1) For stage I and II tumours (according to the TNM classification, 8th edition, 2017) (2), typically, initial surgery may be considered curative (3)(4)(5)(6).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Relatively recent, the identification of recurrence risk biomarkers in stage II and even I, by using MMR (mismatch repair) and MSI (microsatelite instability), as well as other biomarkers that have been mesured systematically and have brought benefit by associating adjuvant chemotherapy to the management of risk patients (4,18,19). For patients with stage II colorectal cancer, the association of adjuvant chemotherapy remains controversial, so the need for applying standardized protocols according to each prognosis factor is recommended (3,5,13,20).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Prognostic Factors Analysis for Colon Cancer with Lymph Node Negative

Vilcea¹,

Romain²,

Rohr³

et al. 2018

chr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We performed a retrospective analysis regarding the impact of prognosis factors for patients with high recurrence risk in stages I and II. We studied 99 patients with T2, T3 and T4 tumors who suffered a curative resection and whom may or may not present indication for adjuvant chemotherapy according to histoprognostic factors and molecular biomarkers. We performed a univariate Cox regression which highlighted that male sex is a risk factor for disease relapse (HR=5.53, p 0.05, IC95% = 1.29 to 23.73). Although with a low statistical significance effect, T4 tumors seems to be associated with a poor prognosis regarding disease relapse (HR = 2.56, p = 0.06, IC95% = 0.94 to 6.99) compared to T2 and T3 tumors. Patients with d'MMR (MSI-H) seem to have a more favorable evolution compared to patients with p'MMR (MSS/MSI-L) - HR (d'MMR vs p'MMR) = 0.19, IC95% = 0.02 to 1.61, p = 0.13. We believe that it would be useful for MSS / MSI to be systematically analyzed, our data suggesting a better response of d`MMR patients to adjuvant chemotherapy. The multivariate Cox regression did not identify independent risk factors of relapse.

show abstract

“…This fact may suggest extending the notion of relapse risk for T2 tumors similar to those in stage II (T3 and T4 with high risk), for which adjuvant chemotherapy is necessary (4,22).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In the literature there is still debate surrounding the usefulness of chemotherapy for this patients (3,4,6,8,10,15,20).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Prognostic Factors Analysis for Colon Cancer with Lymph Node Negative

Vilcea¹,

Romain²,

Rohr³

et al. 2018

chr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Interobserver variability in the H&E-based assessment of tumor budding in pT3/4 colon cancer: does it affect the prognostic relevance?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tumor budding is a mostly accepted adverse prognostic factor in colorectal carcinoma. It is on the cusp of a widespread use after agreement was reached recently on uniform assessment criteria. We investigated whether the interobserver variability has a direct influence on the prognostic relevance in pT3/4 colon cancer in the background of different levels of experience of the investigators. In total, six investigators with different levels of experience evaluated tumor budding on H&E slides in 244 cases with primary diagnosed (2002-2011) colon carcinoma (pT3/4, N+/-, M0). High-grade tumor budding/budding grade 3 (defined as majority assessment among the investigators) was significantly associated with an adverse outcome (overall survival p = 0.03, cancer-specific survival p = 0.08) and the occurrence of distant metastasis (p = 0.009). However, a detailed analysis of the rating results of the individual investigators revealed that only ratings of one investigator (advanced resident) were associated with an adverse outcome (p = 0.01 cancer-specific survival, overall survival p = 0.09, distant metastasis p = 0.002). The results of another investigator (consultant) were significantly associated with distant metastasis (p = 0.007). The kappa values among the investigators have a range between 0.077 and 0.357 (median 0.166). Total agreement of all investigators existed in 109 cases (44.7%). Our results demonstrate that the evaluation of tumor budding on H&E slides in pT3/4 colon cancer goes along with a considerable interobserver variability among investigators of different levels of experience. Furthermore, our results reveal that these findings directly influence the prognostic value.

show abstract

A Mass Spectrometry Imaging Based Approach for Prognosis Prediction in UICC Stage I/II Colon Cancer

Martin

Gonçalves

Bollwein

et al. 2021

Cancers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, pathological evaluation of stage I/II colon cancer, following the Union Internationale Contre Le Cancer (UICC) guidelines, is insufficient to identify patients that would benefit from adjuvant treatment. In our study, we analyzed tissue samples from 276 patients with colon cancer utilizing mass spectrometry imaging. Two distinct approaches are herein presented for data processing and analysis. In one approach, four different machine learning algorithms were applied to predict the tendency to develop metastasis, which yielded accuracies over 90% for three of the models. In the other approach, 1007 m/z features were evaluated with regards to their prognostic capabilities, yielding two m/z features as promising prognostic markers. One feature was identified as a fragment from collagen (collagen 3A1), hinting that a higher collagen content within the tumor is associated with poorer outcomes. Identification of proteins that reflect changes in the tumor and its microenvironment could give a very much-needed prediction of a patient’s prognosis, and subsequently assist in the choice of a more adequate treatment.

show abstract

A new simple morphology‐based risk score is prognostic in stage I/II colon cancers

Cited by 3 publications

References 35 publications

Prognostic Factors Analysis for Colon Cancer with Lymph Node Negative

Prognostic Factors Analysis for Colon Cancer with Lymph Node Negative

Interobserver variability in the H&E-based assessment of tumor budding in pT3/4 colon cancer: does it affect the prognostic relevance?

A Mass Spectrometry Imaging Based Approach for Prognosis Prediction in UICC Stage I/II Colon Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About