| Literature DB >> 19308692 |
Fania S Doekhie1, Hans Morreau, Geertruida H de Bock, Frank M Speetjens, N Geeske Dekker-Ensink, Hein Putter, Cornelis J H van de Velde, Rob A E M Tollenaar, Peter J K Kuppen.
Abstract
Up to 30% of curatively resected colorectal cancer patients with tumor-negative lymph nodes, show disease recurrence. We assessed whether these high-risk patients can be identified by examining primary tumors for the following blood and lymphatic vasculature markers: A) sialyl Lewis X (sLeX), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-C and VEGF-D expression; B) blood and lymphatic microvessel density (BMVD/LMVD); and C) the presence of blood and lymphatic vessel invasion. Thirty-six cases (disease recurrence within 5 years) and 72 controls (no disease recurrence for at least 5 years) were selected in a case-control design. Tumor sections were stained by antibodies CSLEX1 (sLeX), anti-VEGF-C, anti-VEGF-D, anti-CD31 (BMVD) or D2-40 (LMVD) to determine the parameters as mentioned above. A multivariate analysis showed sLeX expression and high LMVD (odds ratio 5.1, 95% confidence interval 1.3-20.0 and odds ratio 3.1, 95% confidence interval 1.0-10.0, respectively) to be independent factors predicting disease recurrence. Expression of sLeX correlated with liver metastases (P = 0.015). A high LMVD was related to regional intra-abdominal or intrapelvic metastases in lymph nodes and distant metastases other than in the liver and lungs such as peritoneum, bones, brain and adrenal glands (P = 0.004). A high BMVD in the invasive front correlated with lung metastases (P = 0.018). We show that high-risk node-negative colorectal cancer patients can be identified by primary tumor assessment for sLeX expression and LMVD. Our results are consistent with the notion that both lymphatic and hematogenous metastasis play a role in colorectal cancer.Entities:
Year: 2008 PMID: 19308692 PMCID: PMC2654349 DOI: 10.1007/s12307-008-0014-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Microenviron ISSN: 1875-2284
Patient and primary tumor characteristics
| Characteristics | All patients ( | Cases ( | Controls ( | Ph | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | Number | Percent | Number | Percent | ||
| Sex | |||||||
| Female | 53 | 49 | 16 | 44 | 37 | 51 | 0.496 |
| Male | 55 | 51 | 20 | 56 | 35 | 49 | |
| Age (years)a | 67 ± 12 | 67 ± 12 | 67 ± 12 | 0.911i | |||
| TNM stageb | |||||||
| I | 6 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 1.000j |
| II | 102 | 94 | 34 | 94 | 68 | 94 | |
| T stagec | |||||||
| T2 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 0.126 |
| T3 | 88 | 82 | 26 | 72 | 62 | 86 | |
| T4 | 14 | 13 | 8 | 22 | 6 | 8 | |
| Tumor size (cm) ( | 5.1 ± 2.0 | 4.9 ± 1.9 (n = 34) | 5.2 ± 2.1(n = 70) | 0.539i | |||
| Tumor location | |||||||
| Colon (coecum–sigmoid) | 89 | 82 | 30 | 83 | 59 | 82 | 0.858 |
| Rectum (rectosigmoid−rectum) | 19 | 18 | 6 | 17 | 13 | 18 | |
| Differentiation | |||||||
| Good | 27 | 25 | 9 | 25 | 18 | 25 | 0.912 |
| Moderate | 68 | 63 | 22 | 61 | 46 | 64 | |
| Poor | 13 | 12 | 5 | 14 | 8 | 11 | |
| Mucinous | |||||||
| No | 98 | 91 | 32 | 89 | 66 | 92 | 0.728j |
| Yes | 10 | 9 | 4 | 11 | 6 | 8 | |
| Growth pattern ( | |||||||
| Expanding or pushing | 70 | 72 | 20 | 60 | 50 | 79 | 0.031 |
| Infiltrating | 27 | 28 | 14 | 41 | 13 | 21 | |
| Number of lymph nodesf | 6 (1–26) | 6 (1–18) | 6 (1–26) | 0.096k | |||
| Preoperative serum CEA level ( | |||||||
| <6 ug/l | 30 | 70 | 5 | 56 | 25 | 74 | 0.417j |
| ≥6 ug/l | 13 | 30 | 4 | 44 | 9 | 26 | |
CEA Carcinoembryonic antigen
aPresented as mean ± standard deviation
bAccording to the 6th edition of the TNM classification [39]
cIf T2 and T3 stage were combined, the P-value was 0.043; this comparison was therefore used in the logistic regression
dTumor size could not be found in pathology reports from four patients
ePatients were excluded from analysis if no invasive front was found in primary tumor sections
fPresented as median and range between brackets
gSerum CEA had been determined in only 43 of 108 patients as it was not a standard procedure
hChi-square test of cases versus controls, unless mentioned otherwise
iStudent T-test
jFisher’s exact test
kMann–Whitney test
Sialyl Lewis X and vascular endothelial growth factor C and D cytoplasmic staining in primary colorectal tumors (n = 99)a
| All patients | Cases | Controls | Pb | Univariate analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | Number | Percent | Number | Percent | OR | 95% CI | |||
| CSLEX1 | ||||||||||
| Negative | 25 | 25 | 3 | 9 | 22 | 33 | 0.012 | 1 | ||
| Positive | 74 | 75 | 29 | 91 | 45 | 67 | 4.7 | (1.3–17.2) | 0.019 | |
| VEGF-C | ||||||||||
| Negative | 67 | 68 | 18 | 56 | 49 | 73 | 0.093 | 1 | ||
| Positive | 32 | 32 | 14 | 44 | 18 | 27 | 2.1 | (0.9–5.1) | 0.096 | |
| VEGF-D | ||||||||||
| Negative | 88 | 89 | 26 | 79 | 62 | 94 | 0.039c | 1 | ||
| Positive | 11 | 11 | 7 | 21 | 4 | 6 | 4.2 | (1.1–15.5) | 0.033 | |
VEGF Vascular endothelial growth factor, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
aPrimary tumors from three controls could not be retrieved from the archive and tissue sections which were destroyed after staining were excluded from analysis leading to a lower number of examined slides
bChi-square test of cases versus controls, unless mentioned otherwise
cFisher’s exact test
Microvessel density and microvessel tumor invasion in primary colorectal tumorsa
| All patients | Cases | Controls | Pe | Univariate analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | Number | Percent | Number | Percent | OR | 95% CI | |||
| BMVD invasive front ( | ||||||||||
| Low | 76 | 84 | 24 | 75 | 52 | 90 | 0.077f | 1 | ||
| High | 14 | 16 | 8 | 25 | 6 | 10 | 2.9 | (0.9–9.3) | 0.074 | |
| LMVD tumor stroma or invasive front ( | ||||||||||
| Low | 72 | 79 | 22 | 67 | 50 | 86 | 0.027 | 1 | ||
| High | 19 | 21 | 11 | 33 | 8 | 14 | 3.1 | (1.1–8.8) | 0.032 | |
| Blood vessel invasion ( | ||||||||||
| Absent | 95 | 99 | 32 | 97 | 63 | 100 | 0.344f | NA | ||
| Present | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Lymphatic vessel invasion ( | ||||||||||
| Absent | 88 | 92 | 28 | 85 | 60 | 95 | 0.119f | 1 | ||
| Present | 8 | 8 | 5 | 15 | 3 | 5 | 3.6 | (0.8–16.0) | 0.096 | |
BMVD Blood microvessel density, LMVD lymphatic microvessel density, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, NA not assessable
aPrimary tumors from three controls could not be retrieved from the archive and tissue sections which were destroyed after staining were excluded from analysis leading to a variable number of examined slides; blood microvessels were stained with anti-CD31 antibodies and lymphatic vessels were stained with D2–40 antibodies
bMaximum number of counted vessels from hot spots; invasive front was not present on all sections
cHigh: greater than 46
dHigh: greater than 20
eChi-square test of cases versus controls, unless mentioned otherwise
fFisher’s exact test
Univariate analysis of clinicopathological characteristics
| Characteristics | Univariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | ||
| Sex | |||
| Female | 1 | ||
| Male | 1.3 | (0.6–3.0) | 0.497 |
| Age (years) | 1.0 | (0.97–1.03) | 0.910 |
| T stage | |||
| T2 and T3 | 1 | ||
| T4 | 3.1 | (1.0–9.9) | 0.050 |
| Tumor size (cm) ( | 0.9 | (0.8–1.2) | 0.536 |
| Tumor location | |||
| Colon (coecum–sigmoid) | 1 | ||
| Rectum (rectosigmoid–rectum) | 0.9 | (0.3–2.6) | 0.858 |
| Differentiation | 0.913a | ||
| Good | 1 | ||
| Moderate | 1.0 | (0.4–2.5) | 0.927 |
| Poor | 1.3 | (0.3–4.9) | 0.750 |
| Number of lymph nodes | 0.9 | (0.9–1.0) | 0.132 |
| Mucinous | |||
| No | 1 | ||
| Yes | 1.4 | (0.4–5.2) | 0.640 |
| Growth pattern | |||
| Expanding or pushing | 1 | ||
| Infiltrating | 2.7 | (1.1–6.7) | 0.034 |
| Preoperative serum CEA level ( | |||
| <6 ug/l | 1 | ||
| ≥6 ug/l | 2.2 | (0.5–10.2) | 0.303 |
OR Odds ratio, CI confidence interval, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen
aOverall P-value
Fig. 1CSLEX1, VEGF-C and VEGF-D expression in colorectal tumors. A tumor negatively stained (a) and positively stained (b) for CSLEX1; this tumor showed both membrane and cytoplasmic brown staining. A tumor with negative (c) and positive cytoplasmic brown staining (d) for VEGF-C; similar faint cytoplasmic brown staining as shown in negatively stained tumors for VEGF-C was seen in phosphate buffered saline controles for the VEGF-C staining; this background staining could be clearly differentiated from positive cytoplasmic brown staining for VEGF-C. A tumor with negative (e) and positive cytoplasmic brown staining (f) for VEGF-D; a brown stromal background staining was seen
Fig. 2Visualization of lymphatic and blood vessels in colorectal tumors. Lymphatic vessels were stained brown when using immunohistochemistry by the antibodies D2–40 (a). These lymphatic vessels showed no staining by immunohistochemistry when using antibodies CD31 (b). Blood vessels were not recognized by D2–40 (c) but were brown stained by CD31 (d)
Fig. 3Tumor cell invasion in lymphatic and blood vessels in colorectal tumors. Lymphatic vessel invasion seen on a hematoxylin and eosin stained section (a) and immunohistochemically stained section by the antibodies D2–40 (b); lymphatic vessels were brown stained by D2–40. Blood vessel invasion seen on a hematoxylin and eosin stained section (c) and immunohistochemically stained section by the antibodies CD31 (d); blood vessels were brown stained by CD31