K M Marks1, N P West1, E Morris2, P Quirke1. 1. Section of Pathology and Tumour Biology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 2. Section of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous factors affect the prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC), many of which have long been identified, such as patient demographics and the multidisciplinary team. In more recent years, molecular and immunological biomarkers have been shown to have a significant influence on patient outcomes. Whilst some of these biomarkers still require ongoing validation, if proven to be worthwhile they may change our understanding and future management of CRC. The aim of this review was to identify the key prognosticators of CRC, including new molecular and immunological biomarkers, and outline how these might fit into the whole wider context for patients. METHODS: Relevant references were identified through keyword searches of PubMed and Embase Ovid SP databases. RESULTS: In recent years there have been numerous studies outlining molecular markers of prognosis in CRC. In particular, the Immunoscore® has been shown to hold strong prognostic value. Other molecular biomarkers are useful in guiding treatment decisions, such as mutation testing of genes in the epidermal growth factor receptor pathway. However, epidemiological studies continue to show that patient demographics are fundamental in predicting outcomes. CONCLUSION: Current strategies for managing CRC are strongly dependent on clinicopathological staging, although molecular testing is increasingly being implemented into routine clinical practice. As immunological biomarkers are further validated, their testing may also become routine. To obtain clinically useful information from new biomarkers, it is important to implement them into a model that includes all underlying fundamental factors, as this will enable the best possible outcomes and deliver true precision medicine.
BACKGROUND: Numerous factors affect the prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC), many of which have long been identified, such as patient demographics and the multidisciplinary team. In more recent years, molecular and immunological biomarkers have been shown to have a significant influence on patient outcomes. Whilst some of these biomarkers still require ongoing validation, if proven to be worthwhile they may change our understanding and future management of CRC. The aim of this review was to identify the key prognosticators of CRC, including new molecular and immunological biomarkers, and outline how these might fit into the whole wider context for patients. METHODS: Relevant references were identified through keyword searches of PubMed and Embase Ovid SP databases. RESULTS: In recent years there have been numerous studies outlining molecular markers of prognosis in CRC. In particular, the Immunoscore® has been shown to hold strong prognostic value. Other molecular biomarkers are useful in guiding treatment decisions, such as mutation testing of genes in the epidermal growth factor receptor pathway. However, epidemiological studies continue to show that patient demographics are fundamental in predicting outcomes. CONCLUSION: Current strategies for managing CRC are strongly dependent on clinicopathological staging, although molecular testing is increasingly being implemented into routine clinical practice. As immunological biomarkers are further validated, their testing may also become routine. To obtain clinically useful information from new biomarkers, it is important to implement them into a model that includes all underlying fundamental factors, as this will enable the best possible outcomes and deliver true precision medicine.
Authors: J J Smith; H S Tilney; A G Heriot; A W Darzi; H Forbes; M R Thompson; J D Stamatakis; P P Tekkis Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Nicole C Panarelli; Andrew M Schreiner; Suzanne M Brandt; Neil A Shepherd; Rhonda K Yantiss Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Amanda I Phipps; Paul J Limburg; John A Baron; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Daniel J Weisenberger; Peter W Laird; Frank A Sinicrope; Christophe Rosty; Daniel D Buchanan; John D Potter; Polly A Newcomb Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Sylvia Adams; Robert J Gray; Sandra Demaria; Lori Goldstein; Edith A Perez; Lawrence N Shulman; Silvana Martino; Molin Wang; Vicky E Jones; Thomas J Saphner; Antonio C Wolff; William C Wood; Nancy E Davidson; George W Sledge; Joseph A Sparano; Sunil S Badve Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: T S Maughan; A M Meade; R A Adams; S D Richman; R Butler; D Fisher; R H Wilson; B Jasani; G R Taylor; G T Williams; J R Sampson; M T Seymour; L L Nichols; S L Kenny; A Nelson; C M Sampson; E Hodgkinson; J A Bridgewater; D L Furniss; R Roy; M J Pope; J K Pope; M Parmar; P Quirke; R Kaplan Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-04-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Justin Guinney; Rodrigo Dienstmann; Xin Wang; Aurélien de Reyniès; Andreas Schlicker; Charlotte Soneson; Laetitia Marisa; Paul Roepman; Gift Nyamundanda; Paolo Angelino; Brian M Bot; Jeffrey S Morris; Iris M Simon; Sarah Gerster; Evelyn Fessler; Felipe De Sousa E Melo; Edoardo Missiaglia; Hena Ramay; David Barras; Krisztian Homicsko; Dipen Maru; Ganiraju C Manyam; Bradley Broom; Valerie Boige; Beatriz Perez-Villamil; Ted Laderas; Ramon Salazar; Joe W Gray; Douglas Hanahan; Josep Tabernero; Rene Bernards; Stephen H Friend; Pierre Laurent-Puig; Jan Paul Medema; Anguraj Sadanandam; Lodewyk Wessels; Mauro Delorenzi; Scott Kopetz; Louis Vermeulen; Sabine Tejpar Journal: Nat Med Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Kelly Offermans; Josien Ca Jenniskens; Colinda Cjm Simons; Iryna Samarska; Gregorio E Fazzi; Kim M Smits; Leo J Schouten; Matty P Weijenberg; Heike I Grabsch; Piet A van den Brandt Journal: J Pathol Clin Res Date: 2021-11-17