OBJECTIVE: To compare the independent prognostic effect of a panel of immunohistochemical protein markers in colorectal cancer (CRC) and determine their ranking among the established prognostic factors T stage, N stage, vascular invasion, tumour budding and tumour grade. DESIGN: A tissue microarray of 1420 CRCs was immunostained for 23 markers and mismatch repair (MMR) proteins. Immunoreactivity was assessed semi-quantitatively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine cut-off scores for tumour marker positivity. Survival time was investigated for each marker in multivariable analysis with T stage, N stage, vascular invasion, tumour budding and tumour grade. The hazard ratio (HR) was used to compare the prognostic effect of each marker on 5 year survival. RESULTS: To the standard prognostic features, only six markers added independent prognostic information including receptor for hyaluronic acid mediated motility (RHAMM) (HR = 2.39 (1.88 to 3.05)), epidermal growth factor receptor (HR = 1.65 (1.31 to 2.09)), tumour infiltrating lymphocytes (HR = 0.7 (0.54 to 0.92)), urokinase plasminogen activator (HR = 1.38 (1.09 to 1.75)), Raf-1 kinase inhibitor protein (HR = 0.75 (0.58 to 0.96)) and mammalian sterile 20-like kinase 1 (MST1) (HR = 0.75 (0.58 to 0.95). Diffuse (>90% staining) expression of RHAMM ranked above T stage, vascular invasion, tumour budding and tumour grade in terms of adverse prognostic significance and was associated with distant metastasis (p = 0.012) and with worse outcome in patients with metastatic disease (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: The strong adverse effect of RHAMM on outcome in addition to its position within the hierarchy of well-established prognostic factors suggest that RHAMM should be considered a more important prognosticator than tumour grade, tumour budding and vascular invasion in patients with CRC.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the independent prognostic effect of a panel of immunohistochemical protein markers in colorectal cancer (CRC) and determine their ranking among the established prognostic factors T stage, N stage, vascular invasion, tumour budding and tumour grade. DESIGN: A tissue microarray of 1420 CRCs was immunostained for 23 markers and mismatch repair (MMR) proteins. Immunoreactivity was assessed semi-quantitatively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine cut-off scores for tumour marker positivity. Survival time was investigated for each marker in multivariable analysis with T stage, N stage, vascular invasion, tumour budding and tumour grade. The hazard ratio (HR) was used to compare the prognostic effect of each marker on 5 year survival. RESULTS: To the standard prognostic features, only six markers added independent prognostic information including receptor for hyaluronic acid mediated motility (RHAMM) (HR = 2.39 (1.88 to 3.05)), epidermal growth factor receptor (HR = 1.65 (1.31 to 2.09)), tumour infiltrating lymphocytes (HR = 0.7 (0.54 to 0.92)), urokinase plasminogen activator (HR = 1.38 (1.09 to 1.75)), Raf-1 kinase inhibitor protein (HR = 0.75 (0.58 to 0.96)) and mammalian sterile 20-like kinase 1 (MST1) (HR = 0.75 (0.58 to 0.95). Diffuse (>90% staining) expression of RHAMM ranked above T stage, vascular invasion, tumour budding and tumour grade in terms of adverse prognostic significance and was associated with distant metastasis (p = 0.012) and with worse outcome in patients with metastatic disease (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: The strong adverse effect of RHAMM on outcome in addition to its position within the hierarchy of well-established prognostic factors suggest that RHAMM should be considered a more important prognosticator than tumour grade, tumour budding and vascular invasion in patients with CRC.
Authors: Chellappagounder Thangavel; Ettickan Boopathi; Yi Liu; Alex Haber; Adam Ertel; Anshul Bhardwaj; Sankar Addya; Noelle Williams; Stephen J Ciment; Paolo Cotzia; Jeffry L Dean; Adam Snook; Chris McNair; Matt Price; James R Hernandez; Shuang G Zhao; Ruth Birbe; James B McCarthy; Eva A Turley; Kenneth J Pienta; Felix Y Feng; Adam P Dicker; Karen E Knudsen; Robert B Den Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Bruno A Cisterna; Nazila Kamaly; Won Il Choi; Ali Tavakkoli; Omid C Farokhzad; Cristian Vilos Journal: Nanomedicine (Lond) Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 5.307
Authors: I Zlobec; F Molinari; M Kovac; M P Bihl; H J Altermatt; J Diebold; H Frick; M Germer; M Horcic; M Montani; G Singer; H Yurtsever; A Zettl; L Terracciano; L Mazzucchelli; P Saletti; M Frattini; K Heinimann; A Lugli Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 7.640