4.6 Article

Characterization of the immunological microenvironment of tumour buds and its impact on prognosis in mismatch repair-proficient and -deficient colorectal cancers

Journal

HISTOPATHOLOGY
Volume 59, Issue 3, Pages 482-495

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03975.x

Keywords

CD68; CD8; colorectal cancer; FoxP3; prognosis; tumour budding

Funding

  1. Krebsliga beider Basel Gesuch [07/2008]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: Tumour budding in colorectal cancer is established as a poor prognostic factor. The inverse correlation of tumour buds with peritumoural lymphocytic inflammation suggests an interaction with specific immune responses. The aims of this study were to characterize the immunological microenvironment of tumour buds and its impact on prognosis in mismatch repair (MMR)-proficient and -deficient colorectal cancers. Methods and results: A total of 297 colorectal cancers were double-immunostained for CK22 plus one of the following: CD138, CD16, CD20, CD21, CD56, CD68, CD8, forkhead box P2 (FoxP3), granzyme B, mast cell tryptase, CD3 or T cell intracellular antigen-1 (TIA)-1. Tumour buds and immune cells within the region of densest budding were evaluated [x40 high-power field (HPF)] simultaneously. In both MMR-proficient and deficient cancers, CD8(+), FoxP3(+) and CD68(+) cells were observed most frequently (> 40 cells/HPF) and were independent prognostic factors. A combined prognostic score of tumour budding and CD8(+), FoxP3(+) and CD68(+) distinctly identified patients with low-, moderate- or high-risk colorectal cancers with 5-year survival rates of 75.2% [confidence interval 95% (CI): 66-83], 56.3% (95% CI: 43-68) and 25.2% (95% CI: 14-38), respectively, in MMR-proficient and -deficient cancers. Conclusion: The combined assessment of tumour budding with CD8, FoxP3 and CD68 lymphocytes could represent a basis for a prognostic score similar to the Bloom Richardson grade (BRE) and Gleason scores for breast and prostatic cancers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available