J B Wild1, N Iqbal2, J Francombe2, T Papettas2, D S Sanders3, S Ramcharan2,4. 1. Departments of Colorectal Surgery, South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust, Warwick, UK. Benw@doctors.org.uk. 2. Departments of Colorectal Surgery, South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust, Warwick, UK. 3. Departments of Histopathology, South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust, Warwick, UK. 4. Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lymph node metastasis (LNM) is prognostic in colorectal cancer (CRC). However, evaluation by routine haematoxylin and eosin histology (HE) limits nodal examination and is subjective. Missed LNMs from tissue allocation bias (TAB) might under-stage disease, leading to under-treatment. One-step nucleic acid amplification (OSNA) for CK19 messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), a marker of LNM, analyses the whole node. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess recent studies on OSNA versus HE and its implications for CRC staging and treatment. METHODS: Databases including OVID, Medline and Google Scholar were searched for OSNA, LNM and CRC. Study results were pooled using a random-effects model. Summary receiver operator curves (SROC) assessed OSNA's performance in detecting LNM when compared to routine HE histology. RESULTS: Five case-control studies analysing 4080 nodes from 622 patients were included. The summary estimates of pooled results for OSNA were sensitivity 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-0.93], specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.93-0.95) and diagnostic odds ratio 179.5 (CI 58.35-552.2, p < 0.0001). The SROC curve indicated a maximum joint sensitivity and specificity of 0.88 and area under the curve of 0.94, p < 0.0001. On average, 5.4% HE-negative nodes were upstaged by OSNA. CONCLUSIONS: OSNA is as good as routine HE. It may avoid TAB and offer a more objective and standardised assay of LNM. However, for upstaging, its usefulness as an adjunct to HE or superiority to HE requires further assessment of the benefits, if any, of adjuvant therapy in patients upstaged by OSNA.
BACKGROUND: Lymph node metastasis (LNM) is prognostic in colorectal cancer (CRC). However, evaluation by routine haematoxylin and eosin histology (HE) limits nodal examination and is subjective. Missed LNMs from tissue allocation bias (TAB) might under-stage disease, leading to under-treatment. One-step nucleic acid amplification (OSNA) for CK19 messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), a marker of LNM, analyses the whole node. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess recent studies on OSNA versus HE and its implications for CRC staging and treatment. METHODS: Databases including OVID, Medline and Google Scholar were searched for OSNA, LNM and CRC. Study results were pooled using a random-effects model. Summary receiver operator curves (SROC) assessed OSNA's performance in detecting LNM when compared to routine HE histology. RESULTS: Five case-control studies analysing 4080 nodes from 622 patients were included. The summary estimates of pooled results for OSNA were sensitivity 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-0.93], specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.93-0.95) and diagnostic odds ratio 179.5 (CI 58.35-552.2, p < 0.0001). The SROC curve indicated a maximum joint sensitivity and specificity of 0.88 and area under the curve of 0.94, p < 0.0001. On average, 5.4% HE-negative nodes were upstaged by OSNA. CONCLUSIONS: OSNA is as good as routine HE. It may avoid TAB and offer a more objective and standardised assay of LNM. However, for upstaging, its usefulness as an adjunct to HE or superiority to HE requires further assessment of the benefits, if any, of adjuvant therapy in patients upstaged by OSNA.
Authors: Leonard L Gunderson; John Milburn Jessup; Daniel J Sargent; Frederick L Greene; Andrew K Stewart Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Boudewijn E Schaafsma; Floris P R Verbeek; Joost R van der Vorst; Merlijn Hutteman; Peter J K Kuppen; John V Frangioni; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Alexander L Vahrmeijer Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Oddmund Nordgård; Satu Oltedal; Hartwig Kørner; Ole Gunnar Aasprong; Kjersti Tjensvoll; Bjørnar Gilje; Reino Heikkilä Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Sherley Diaz-Mercedes; Ivan Archilla; Jordi Camps; Antonio de Lacy; Iñigo Gorostiaga; Dulce Momblan; Ainitze Ibarzabal; Joan Maurel; Nuria Chic; Josep Antoni Bombí; Francesc Balaguer; Antoni Castells; Iban Aldecoa; Josep Maria Borras; Miriam Cuatrecasas Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Francesco Esposito; Adele Noviello; Nicola Moles; Enrico Coppola Bottazzi; Mario Baiamonte; Ina Macaione; Umberto Ferbo; Maria Lepore; Antonio Miro; Francesco Crafa Journal: Ann Coloproctol Date: 2019-08-31
Authors: Michaela Ramser; Leonard A Lobbes; Rene Warschkow; Carsten T Viehl; Johannes C Lauscher; Raoul A Droeser; Christoph Kettelhack; Markus Zuber; Benjamin Weixler Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2021-01-16 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Benjamin Weixler; Sofia Teixeira da Cunha; René Warschkow; Nicolas Demartines; Ulrich Güller; Andreas Zettl; Alexander Vahrmeijer; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Carsten T Viehl; Markus Zuber Journal: World J Surg Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Francesco Crafa; Serafino Vanella; Onofrio A Catalano; Kelsey L Pomykala; Mario Baiamonte Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2022-08-14 Impact factor: 5.374