The role of tumour budding in predicting survival in patients with primary operable colorectal cancer: A systematic review

Wyk, Hester C. van; Park, James; Roxburgh, Campbell S.D.; Horgan, Paul G.; Foulis, Alan K.; McMillan, Donald C.

doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2014.12.007

Cited by 97 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1,5 . The prognostic power of tumor budding is not affected by the number of cells that defines a cluster 11,[13][14][15]18 . Since 4 tumor cells is the most widely used cut-off for tumor budding, and since this cut-off distinguishes tumor budding from the novel histopathological parameter "poorly differentiated cluster (PDC)" which is defined as 5 or more cells 27,59 , the ITBCC group agreed on a cut-off of up to 4 cells to define tumor budding reported, in accordance with current guidelines and protocols [69][70][71] .…”

Section: Strength Of Recommendationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tumor budding is an independent adverse prognostic factor in colorectal cancer [11][12][13][14][15] . It is also associated with a higher TNM stage, high tumor grade, the presence of lymphovascular invasion and consequently with lymph node and distant metastases [11][12][13][14][15] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is also associated with a higher TNM stage, high tumor grade, the presence of lymphovascular invasion and consequently with lymph node and distant metastases [11][12][13][14][15] . In colorectal cancer, tumor budding can potentially be applied as an additional quantitative prognostic factor to facilitate the management of colorectal cancer patients in three clinical scenarios.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, in stage II colorectal cancer, the presence of tumor budding is an indicator of shorter disease-free survival compared to stage II colorectal cancer with low grade budding, or no budding. Therefore, stage II colorectal cancer patients with high grade tumor budding may be considered for adjuvant therapy 13,14,18,19 . Third, ITB assessed in preoperative biopsies could help select patients who might qualify for neo-adjuvant therapy and could potentially predict tumor regression [20][21][22] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The selection of the tumor slide, the location of counting, the applied stain (H&E vs immunohistochemistry) and the scoring system (cut-off vs continuous scale) are practical points that need to be clarified and then validated in multiple studies. Nevertheless, tumor budding seems to be a robust biomarker which retains its prognostic value independently of selected scoring systems used in different studies [11][12][13][14][15] . The primary objective of the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC), which took place in Bern in April 2016, was to reach agreement on an evidence-based, standardized scoring system for tumor budding to be used in international colorectal cancer guidelines and routine practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Recommendations for reporting tumor budding in colorectal cancer based on the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) 2016

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Strength Of Recommendationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Recommendations for reporting tumor budding in colorectal cancer based on the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) 2016

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Determinants of metastatic competency in colorectal cancer

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancer types and represents a major therapeutic challenge. Although initial events in colorectal carcinogenesis are relatively well characterized and treatment for early‐stage disease has significantly improved over the last decades, the mechanisms underlying metastasis – the main cause of death – remain poorly understood. Correspondingly, no effective therapy is currently available for advanced or metastatic disease. There is increasing evidence that colorectal cancer is hierarchically organized and sustained by cancer stem cells, in concert with various stromal cell types. Here, we review the interplay between cancer stem cells and their microenvironment in promoting metastasis and discuss recent insights relating to both patient prognosis and novel targeted treatment strategies. A better understanding of these topics may aid the prevention or reduction of metastatic burden.

show abstract

Histopathological tumour microenvironment score independently predicts outcome in primary operable colorectal cancer

Hatthakarnkul,

Pennel,

Alexander

et al. 2024

The Journal of Pathology CR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a heterogenous malignancy and research is focused on identifying novel ways to subtype patients. In this study, a novel classification system, tumour microenvironment score (TMS), was devised based on Klintrup–Mäkinen grade (KMG), tumour stroma percentage (TSP), and tumour budding. TMS was performed using a haematoxylin and eosin (H&E)‐stained section from retrospective CRC discovery and validation cohorts (n = 1,030, n = 787). TMS0 patients had high KMG, TMS1 were low for KMG, TSP, and budding, TMS2 were high for budding, or TSP and TMS3 were high for TSP and budding. Scores were assessed for association with survival and clinicopathological characteristics. Mutational landscaping and Templated Oligo‐Sequencing (TempO‐Seq) profiling were performed to establish differences in the underlying biology of TMS. TMS was independently prognostic in both cohorts (p < 0.001, p < 0.001), with TMS3 predictive of the shortest survival times. TMS3 was associated with adverse clinical features including sidedness, local and distant recurrence, higher T stage, higher N stage, and presence of margin involvement. Gene set enrichment analysis of TempO‐Seq data showed higher expression of genes associated with hallmarks of cancer pathways including epithelial to mesenchymal transition (p < 0.001), IL2 STAT5 signalling (p = 0.007), and angiogenesis (p = 0.017) in TMS3. Additionally, enrichment of immunosuppressive immune signatures was associated with TMS3 classification. In conclusion, TMS represents a novel and clinically relevant method for subtyping CRC patients from a single H&E‐stained tumour section.

show abstract

The role of tumour budding in predicting survival in patients with primary operable colorectal cancer: A systematic review

Cited by 97 publications

References 51 publications

Recommendations for reporting tumor budding in colorectal cancer based on the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) 2016

Recommendations for reporting tumor budding in colorectal cancer based on the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) 2016

Determinants of metastatic competency in colorectal cancer

Histopathological tumour microenvironment score independently predicts outcome in primary operable colorectal cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About