当前位置: X-MOL 学术Eur. J. Cancer › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Are tumour grade and tumour budding equivalent in colorectal cancer? A retrospective analysis of 771 patients.
European Journal of Cancer ( IF 7.6 ) Pub Date : 2020-03-19 , DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.007
Inti Zlobec 1 , Heather E Dawson 1 , Annika Blank 1 , John-Melle Bokhorst 2 , Martin D Berger 3 , Iris D Nagtegaal 2 , Alessandro Lugli 1
Affiliation  

BACKGROUND Tumour grade is traditionally considered in the management of patients with colorectal cancer. However, a large body of literature suggests that a related feature, namely tumour budding, may have a more important clinical impact. The aim of our study is to determine the correlation between tumour grade and tumour budding and their impact on patient outcome. METHODS A retrospective collective of 771 patients with colorectal cancer were included in the study. Clinicopathological information included tumour grade (World Health Organisation 2010; G1, G2 and G3) and tumour budding evaluated as BD1, BD2 and BD3 and representing 0-4 buds, 5-9 buds and 10 or more buds per 0.785 mm2, respectively. RESULTS Tumour grade and tumour budding were correlated (p < 0.0001, percent concordance: 33.8%). Of the BD1 cases, 18.1% were of G3. Only two BD3 cases were G1. Both high tumour grade and tumour budding were associated with higher pT, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis and lymphatic and venous vessel invasion (p < 0.01, all), but only tumour grade was additionally associated with right-sided tumour location and mucinous histology. Higher tumour budding led to worse overall (p = 0.0286) and disease-free survival (p = 0.001), but tumour grade did not. Budding was independent of tumour grade in multivariate analysis. DISCUSSION Tumour grade and tumour budding are distinct features, as recognised by their different clinicopathological associations, reflecting different underlying biological processes. Nonetheless, tumour budding seems to outperform tumour grade in terms of predicting disease-free survival.

中文翻译:

结直肠癌的肿瘤等级和出芽率是否相等?回顾性分析771例患者。

背景技术传统上在大肠癌患者的治疗中考虑肿瘤等级。然而,大量文献表明相关特征,即肿瘤萌芽,可能具有更重要的临床影响。我们研究的目的是确定肿瘤等级与肿瘤出芽之间的相关性及其对患者预后的影响。方法回顾性收集了771例大肠癌患者。临床病理信息包括肿瘤等级(世界卫生组织,2010年; G1,G2和G3),肿瘤萌芽评估为BD1,BD2和BD3,分别代表每0.785平方毫米0-4个芽,5-9个芽和10个或更多芽。结果肿瘤等级与肿瘤出芽相关(p <0.0001,一致性百分比:33.8%)。在BD1病例中,G3占18.1%。只有2例BD3为G1。高肿瘤等级和肿瘤出芽均与较高的pT,淋巴结转移,远处转移以及淋巴和静脉血管浸润有关(p <0.01,全部),但只有肿瘤等级与右侧肿瘤位置和粘液组织学有关。更高的肿瘤出芽率导致总体较差(p = 0.0286)和无病生存期(p = 0.001),但肿瘤等级却没有。在多变量分析中,发芽与肿瘤等级无关。讨论肿瘤等级和肿瘤出芽是不同的特征,已被它们不同的临床病理学联系所认识,反映了不同的潜在生物学过程。然而,就预测无病生存而言,肿瘤出芽似乎优于肿瘤等级。高肿瘤等级和肿瘤出芽均与较高的pT,淋巴结转移,远处转移以及淋巴和静脉血管浸润有关(p <0.01,全部),但只有肿瘤等级与右侧肿瘤位置和粘液组织学有关。更高的肿瘤出芽率导致总体较差(p = 0.0286)和无病生存期(p = 0.001),但肿瘤等级却没有。在多变量分析中,发芽与肿瘤等级无关。讨论肿瘤等级和肿瘤出芽是不同的特征,已被它们不同的临床病理学联系所认识,反映了不同的潜在生物学过程。然而,就预测无病生存而言,肿瘤出芽似乎优于肿瘤等级。高肿瘤等级和肿瘤出芽均与较高的pT,淋巴结转移,远处转移以及淋巴和静脉血管浸润有关(p <0.01,全部),但只有肿瘤等级与右侧肿瘤位置和粘液组织学有关。更高的肿瘤出芽率导致总体较差(p = 0.0286)和无病生存期(p = 0.001),但肿瘤等级却没有。在多变量分析中,发芽与肿瘤等级无关。讨论肿瘤等级和肿瘤出芽是不同的特征,已被它们不同的临床病理学联系所认识,反映了不同的潜在生物学过程。然而,就预测无病生存而言,肿瘤出芽似乎优于肿瘤等级。远处转移以及淋巴和静脉血管浸润(p <0.01,全部),但仅肿瘤分级与右侧肿瘤位置和粘液组织学有关。更高的肿瘤出芽率导致总体较差(p = 0.0286)和无病生存期(p = 0.001),但肿瘤等级却没有。在多变量分析中,发芽与肿瘤等级无关。讨论肿瘤等级和肿瘤出芽是不同的特征,已被它们不同的临床病理学联系所认识,反映了不同的潜在生物学过程。然而,就预测无病生存而言,肿瘤出芽似乎优于肿瘤等级。远处转移以及淋巴和静脉血管浸润(p <0.01,全部),但仅肿瘤分级与右侧肿瘤位置和粘液组织学有关。更高的肿瘤出芽率导致总体较差(p = 0.0286)和无病生存期(p = 0.001),但肿瘤等级却没有。在多变量分析中,发芽与肿瘤等级无关。讨论肿瘤等级和肿瘤出芽是不同的特征,已被它们不同的临床病理学联系所认识,反映了不同的潜在生物学过程。然而,就预测无病生存而言,肿瘤出芽似乎优于肿瘤等级。0286)和无病生存期(p = 0.001),但肿瘤等级却没有。在多变量分析中,发芽与肿瘤等级无关。讨论肿瘤等级和肿瘤出芽是不同的特征,已被它们不同的临床病理学联系所认识,反映了不同的潜在生物学过程。然而,就预测无病生存而言,肿瘤出芽似乎优于肿瘤等级。0286)和无病生存期(p = 0.001),但肿瘤等级却没有。在多变量分析中,发芽与肿瘤等级无关。讨论肿瘤等级和肿瘤出芽是不同的特征,已被它们不同的临床病理学联系所认识,反映了不同的潜在生物学过程。然而,就预测无病生存而言,肿瘤出芽似乎优于肿瘤等级。
更新日期:2020-03-19
down
wechat
bug