Annika Resch1, Lars Harbaum2, Marion J Pollheimer1, Peter Kornprat3, Richard A Lindtner4, Cord Langner5. 1. Institute of Pathology, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 25, A-8036, Graz, Austria. 2. Department of Oncology, Haematology, BMT with Section Pneumology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 4. Department of Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 5. Institute of Pathology, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 25, A-8036, Graz, Austria. cord.langner@medunigraz.at.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Tumor grade is a traditional prognostic parameter in colorectal cancer. Remarkably, however, there is still no generally accepted consensus how to perform tumor grading. In this study, we systematically compared the prognostic value of traditional grading based upon histological features, that is, gland formation alone with grading based upon both histological and cytological features, such as nuclear pleomorphism and anaplasia ("alternative grade"). METHODS: Three hundred eighty-one tumors of randomly selected patients were retrospectively reviewed. Traditional and alternative tumor grades were related to various clinicopathological features and to progression-free and cancer-specific survival applying both univariate and multivariate testing. RESULTS: Traditional and alternative tumor grades were significantly associated with T and N classification, tumor size, lymphovascular invasion, as well as both progression-free and cancer-specific survival. In Cox's proportional hazards regression models, the alternative grade was superior to the traditional tumor grade and was significantly associated with progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.04-2.35; p = 0.031), independent of patients' age and gender, T and N classification, and lymphovascular invasion. Likewise, patients with tumors with high alternative grade were more likely to die of disease (hazard ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.85-2.00), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor grade based upon both histological and cytological features was superior to grade based upon histological features alone and proved to be an independent prognostic parameter. Thus, tumor grade based upon both histological and cytological features may help to improve prognostic stratification and may thereby affect clinical decision-making and patient management.
PURPOSE:Tumor grade is a traditional prognostic parameter in colorectal cancer. Remarkably, however, there is still no generally accepted consensus how to perform tumor grading. In this study, we systematically compared the prognostic value of traditional grading based upon histological features, that is, gland formation alone with grading based upon both histological and cytological features, such as nuclear pleomorphism and anaplasia ("alternative grade"). METHODS: Three hundred eighty-one tumors of randomly selected patients were retrospectively reviewed. Traditional and alternative tumor grades were related to various clinicopathological features and to progression-free and cancer-specific survival applying both univariate and multivariate testing. RESULTS: Traditional and alternative tumor grades were significantly associated with T and N classification, tumor size, lymphovascular invasion, as well as both progression-free and cancer-specific survival. In Cox's proportional hazards regression models, the alternative grade was superior to the traditional tumor grade and was significantly associated with progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.04-2.35; p = 0.031), independent of patients' age and gender, T and N classification, and lymphovascular invasion. Likewise, patients with tumors with high alternative grade were more likely to die of disease (hazard ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.85-2.00), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS:Tumor grade based upon both histological and cytological features was superior to grade based upon histological features alone and proved to be an independent prognostic parameter. Thus, tumor grade based upon both histological and cytological features may help to improve prognostic stratification and may thereby affect clinical decision-making and patient management.
Authors: C G Moertel; T R Fleming; J S Macdonald; D G Haller; J A Laurie; P J Goodman; J S Ungerleider; W A Emerson; D C Tormey; J H Glick Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1990-02-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ravi Kiran Deevi; Arman Javadi; Jane McClements; Jekaterina Vohhodina; Kienan Savage; Maurice Bernard Loughrey; Emma Evergren; Frederick Charles Campbell Journal: J Pathol Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Frederick C Campbell; Maurice Bernard Loughrey; Jane McClements; Ravi Kiran Deevi; Arman Javadi; Lisa Rainey Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 4.307