Jing Liu1, Juan Liu2, Jinsong Li1, Yingling Chen1, Xiaoling Guan3, Xiaojuan Wu1, Chunyan Hao1, Yanlin Sun1, Yan Wang1, Xiao Wang4. 1. Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, PR China. 2. Department of Microbiology and Key Laboratory for Experimental Teratology of Chinese Ministry of Education, School of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, PR China. 3. Department of Endocrinology, Qianfoshan Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, PR China. 4. Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, PR China. Electronic address: wangxiao08@sdu.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Tumor-stroma ratio (TSR) has recently been identified as an independent prognostic parameter for several solid tumors. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prognostic role of TSR in early cervical cancer. METHODS: A cohort of 184 patients who had surgery for early stage cervical cancer (FIGO [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics] stages IA2-IIA) were enrolled in this study. TSR was estimated on hematoxylin-eosin-stained tissue sections from the most invasive part of the primary tumor. Patients with less than 50% stroma were classified as stroma-poor and patients with ≥ 50% stroma were classified as stroma-rich. The relationship between TSR and survival time was statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 88.44% and 92.52%, respectively, in the stroma-poor group, and 62.16% and 70.27%, respectively, in the stroma-rich group. Both the disease-free and overall survival rates in the stroma-poor group were significantly better than those in the stroma-rich group (p=0.001). In a multivariate analysis, TSR was further confirmed as a significant prognostic factor for disease-free survival (hazard ratio 3.125; p=0.005) and overall survival (hazard ratio 3.464; p=0.003), independent of tumor size, FIGO stage and lymph node metastasis. CONCLUSION: Our study identified that TSR was an independent prognostic factor of early cervical cancer. Patients with stroma-rich tumors had worse prognosis and higher risk of relapse compared with those with stroma-poor tumors. Considering its simplicity and availability for conventional clinical pathology, TSR may serve as a new prognostic histological characteristic in early cervical cancer.
OBJECTIVE:Tumor-stroma ratio (TSR) has recently been identified as an independent prognostic parameter for several solid tumors. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prognostic role of TSR in early cervical cancer. METHODS: A cohort of 184 patients who had surgery for early stage cervical cancer (FIGO [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics] stages IA2-IIA) were enrolled in this study. TSR was estimated on hematoxylin-eosin-stained tissue sections from the most invasive part of the primary tumor. Patients with less than 50% stroma were classified as stroma-poor and patients with ≥ 50% stroma were classified as stroma-rich. The relationship between TSR and survival time was statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 88.44% and 92.52%, respectively, in the stroma-poor group, and 62.16% and 70.27%, respectively, in the stroma-rich group. Both the disease-free and overall survival rates in the stroma-poor group were significantly better than those in the stroma-rich group (p=0.001). In a multivariate analysis, TSR was further confirmed as a significant prognostic factor for disease-free survival (hazard ratio 3.125; p=0.005) and overall survival (hazard ratio 3.464; p=0.003), independent of tumor size, FIGO stage and lymph node metastasis. CONCLUSION: Our study identified that TSR was an independent prognostic factor of early cervical cancer. Patients with stroma-rich tumors had worse prognosis and higher risk of relapse compared with those with stroma-poor tumors. Considering its simplicity and availability for conventional clinical pathology, TSR may serve as a new prognostic histological characteristic in early cervical cancer.
Authors: Yue Du; Roy Zhang; Abolfazl Zargari; Theresa C Thai; Camille C Gunderson; Katherine M Moxley; Hong Liu; Bin Zheng; Yuchen Qiu Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Cole R Drifka; Jo Tod; Agnes G Loeffler; Yuming Liu; Gareth J Thomas; Kevin W Eliceiri; W John Kao Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Sarah Ouahoud; Philip W Voorneveld; Lukas J A C Hawinkels; James C H Hardwick; Lennart R A van der Burg; Eveline S M de Jonge-Muller; Mark J A Schoonderwoerd; Madelon Paauwe; Thijs de Vos; Sophie de Wit; Gabi W van Pelt; Wilma E Mesker Journal: Oncogene Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Sophie C Hagenaars; Kiki M H Vangangelt; Gabi W Van Pelt; Zsófia Karancsi; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Andrew R Green; Emad A Rakha; Janina Kulka; Wilma E Mesker Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-04-16 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Ju Won Roh; Dong Ock Lee; Dong Hoon Suh; Myong Cheol Lim; Sang Soo Seo; Jinsoo Chung; Sun Lee; Sang Yoon Park Journal: J Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 4.401