Tumor budding assessed according to the criteria of the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference determines prognosis in resected esophageal adenocarcinoma

Lohneis, Philipp; Hieggelke, Lena; Gebauer, Florian; Ball, Markus; Bruns, Christiane; Büttner, Reinhard; Löser, Heike; Quaas, Alexander

doi:10.1007/s00428-020-02897-3

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tumor budding (defined as a single cell or a non-glandular cluster of less than five cancer cells) is becoming an important prognostic parameter in different types of cancer, including EAs [49]. Budding has not, as yet, been assessed in our analysis; evaluation should (probably) only be applied to glandular carcinomas with particular distinction between true buds and non-gland-forming solid clusters of more than five cells, typical of the GL-PD subtype.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Prognostic Impact of Histology in Esophageal and Esophago-Gastric Junction Adenocarcinoma

Fiocca

Mastracci

Lugaresi

et al. 2021

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stage significantly affects survival of esophageal and esophago-gastric junction adenocarcinomas (EA/EGJAs), however, limited evidence for the prognostic role of histologic subtypes is available. The aim of the study was to describe a morphologic approach to EA/EGJAs and assess its discriminating prognostic power. Histologic slides from 299 neoadjuvant treatment-naïve EA/EGJAs, resected in five European Centers, were retrospectively reviewed. Morphologic features were re-assessed and correlated with survival. In glandular adenocarcinomas (240/299 cases—80%), WHO grade and tumors with a poorly differentiated component ≥6% were the most discriminant factors for survival (both p < 0.0001), distinguishing glandular well-differentiated from poorly differentiated adenocarcinomas. Two prognostically different histologic groups were identified: the lower risk group, comprising glandular well-differentiated (34.4%) and rare variants, such as mucinous muconodular carcinoma (2.7%) and diffuse desmoplastic carcinoma (1.7%), versus the higher risk group, comprising the glandular poorly differentiated subtype (45.8%), including invasive mucinous carcinoma (5.7%), diffuse anaplastic carcinoma (3%), mixed carcinoma (6.7%) (CSS p < 0.0001, DFS p = 0.001). Stage (p < 0.0001), histologic groups (p = 0.001), age >72 years (p = 0.008), and vascular invasion (p = 0.015) were prognostically significant in the multivariate analysis. The combined evaluation of stage/histologic group identified 5-year cancer-specific survival ranging from 87.6% (stage II, lower risk) to 14% (stage IVA, higher risk). Detailed characterization of histologic subtypes contributes to EA/EGJA prognostic prediction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Prognostic Impact of Histology in Esophageal and Esophago-Gastric Junction Adenocarcinoma

Fiocca

Mastracci

Lugaresi

et al. 2021

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the case of colorectal carcinoma, tumor budding is known as an independent predictor of survival in UICC stage II colorectal cancer patients [ 26 ]; ProTBGS grade III clearly demonstrated an excellent outcome-predictive power in patients with ICNST of the breast, independent of UICC pTNM stage, which strongly suggests that the incorporation of the tumor cell–stromal cell interactions enhance the outcome-predictive power of ProTBGS. Therefore, evaluation of the tumor budding grade in fibrotic tumor stroma, corresponding to the TBG in an FF in ICNSTs, in cases of colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and other cancers may be very useful to analyze tumor cell nests and interactions of the tumor cells–stroma cells surrounding the tumor cell nests in colorectal cancer and other cancers [ 40 – 44 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tumor budding and fibrotic focus—proposed grading system for tumor budding in invasive carcinoma no special type of the breast

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tumor budding grade is a very useful histological prognostic indicator for colorectal cancer patients. Recently, it has been also reported as a significant prognostic indicator in invasive breast carcinoma patients. Our group and others have previously reported that the presence of a fibrotic focus in the tumor is a very useful histological finding for accurately predicting the prognosis in patients with invasive carcinoma of no special type (ICNST) of the breast. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether a grading system incorporating tumor budding in a fibrotic focus is superior to the conventional grading system for tumor budding to accurately predict outcomes in patients with ICNST. According to our new grading system, we classified the tumors into grade I (164 cases), grade II (581 cases), and grade III (110 cases), and the results clearly demonstrated the significant superiority of the new grading system over that of conventional tumor budding alone for accurately predicting outcomes in patients with ICNST. Our findings strongly suggest that tumor cells and tumor-stromal cells interaction play very important roles in tumor progression rather than tumor cells alone.

show abstract

“…For example, in the last years, the importance of tumor budding as a prognostic marker has been reported in many solid tumors, including lung, pancreas, esophagus, and colorectal cancer [ 35 , 39 , 40 ]. In EC, the role of tumor budding has been poorly investigated, particularly when taking into account the TCGA classification [ 35 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classification Systems of Endometrial Cancer: A Comparative Study about Old and New

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecological malignancy of the female reproductive organs. Historically it was divided into type I and type II, until 2013 when the Cancer Genome Atlas molecular classification was proposed. Here, we applied the different classification types on our endometrial cancer patient cohort in order to identify the most predictive one. We enrolled 117 endometrial cancer patients available for the study and collected the following parameters: age, body mass index, stage, menopause, Lynch syndrome status, parity, hypertension, type of localization of the lesion at hysteroscopy, type of surgery and complications, and presence of metachronous or synchronous tumors. The tumors were classified according to the European Society for Medical Oncology, Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer, Post-Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma, and Cancer Genome Atlas classification schemes. Our data confirmed that European Society for Medical Oncology risk was the strongest predictor of prognosis in our cohort. The parameters correlated with poor prognosis were the histotype, FIGO stage, and grade. Our study cohort shows that risk stratification should be based on the integration of histologic, clinical, and molecular parameters.

show abstract

Tumor budding assessed according to the criteria of the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference determines prognosis in resected esophageal adenocarcinoma

Cited by 18 publications

References 32 publications

The Prognostic Impact of Histology in Esophageal and Esophago-Gastric Junction Adenocarcinoma

The Prognostic Impact of Histology in Esophageal and Esophago-Gastric Junction Adenocarcinoma

Tumor budding and fibrotic focus—proposed grading system for tumor budding in invasive carcinoma no special type of the breast

Classification Systems of Endometrial Cancer: A Comparative Study about Old and New

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About