| Literature DB >> 32652320 |
Kenji Fujiyoshi1, Juha P Väyrynen2, Jennifer Borowsky3, David J Papke4, Kota Arima3, Koichiro Haruki3, Junko Kishikawa3, Naohiko Akimoto3, Tomotaka Ugai3, Mai Chan Lau3, Simeng Gu3, Shanshan Shi3, Melissa Zhao3, Annacarolina Fabiana Lucia Da Silva3, Tyler S Twombly3, Hongmei Nan5, Jeffrey A Meyerhardt6, Mingyang Song7, Xuehong Zhang8, Kana Wu9, Andrew T Chan10, Charles S Fuchs11, Jochen K Lennerz12, Marios Giannakis13, Jonathan A Nowak3, Shuji Ogino14.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumour budding and poorly differentiated clusters (PDC) represent forms of tumour invasion. We hypothesised that T-cell densities (reflecting adaptive anti-tumour immunity) might be inversely associated with tumour budding and PDC in colorectal carcinoma.Entities:
Keywords: adenocarcinoma; artificial intelligence; clinical outcomes; epithelial mesenchymal transition; host-tumour interaction; molecular pathological epidemiology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32652320 PMCID: PMC7347996 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102860
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EBioMedicine ISSN: 2352-3964 Impact factor: 8.143
Fig. 1Quantification of tumour budding and poorly differentiated clusters (PDCs) using International tumour Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) criteria and the densities of specific T-cell subsets using multiplex immunofluorescence. (a)-(b) Evaluation of tumour budding and PDCs using haematoxylin and eosin-stained sections. (a) Whole slide images were scanned at medium power to identify the most intensive areas of budding and PDCs. (b) The number of tumour buds (black arrowheads) and PDCs (yellow arrow head)/20x microscope field (0.785 mm2) were counted. (c)-(f) Evaluation of the densities and location of T cells with multiplex immunofluorescence. Machine learning-based image processing (c), included tissue category classification (d), cell segmentation (e), and cell phenotyping (f) to identify different T-cell subsets in intraepithelial and stromal regions. Abbreviations: ITBCC, International Tumour Budding Consensus Conference; PDC, Poorly differentiated clusters.
Clinical, pathological, and molecular characteristics of colorectal cancer cases according to tumour budding at invasive front .
| Tumour budding at invasive front | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total No. | Low | Intermediate | High | ||
| Characteristics | ( | ( | ( | ( | |
| Sex | 0.40 | ||||
| Female (NHS) | 503 (55%) | 297 (55%) | 105 (51%) | 101 (58%) | |
| Male (HPFS) | 412 (45%) | 241 (45%) | 99 (49%) | 72 (42%) | |
| Mean age ± SD (years) | 69.1 ± 8.8 | 69.4 ± 8.8 | 69.2 ± 8.9 | 68.1 ± 8.6 | 0.23 |
| Year of diagnosis | 0.74 | ||||
| 1995 or before | 290 (32%) | 168 (31%) | 64 (31%) | 58 (34%) | |
| 1996–2000 | 303 (33%) | 174 (32%) | 67 (33%) | 62 (36%) | |
| 2001–2014 | 322 (35%) | 196 (36%) | 73 (36%) | 53 (31%) | |
| Family history of colorectal cancer in a first-degree relative | 0.76 | ||||
| Absent | 715 (79%) | 425 (79%) | 161 (80%) | 129 (77%) | |
| Present | 192 (21%) | 112 (21%) | 41 (20%) | 39 (23%) | |
| Tumour location | 0.12 | ||||
| cecum | 165 (18%) | 106 (20%) | 34 (17%) | 25 (15%) | |
| Ascending to transverse colon | 299 (33%) | 168 (31%) | 64 (31%) | 67 (39%) | |
| Descending to sigmoid colon | 268 (29%) | 149 (28%) | 73 (36%) | 46 (27%) | |
| Rectum | 179 (20%) | 112 (21%) | 33 (16%) | 34 (20%) | |
| pT stage (depth of tumour invasion) | < 0.001 | ||||
| pT1 (submucosa) | 66 (7.8%) | 60 (12%) | 3 (1.6%) | 3 (2.0%) | |
| pT2 (muscularis propria) | 176 (21%) | 125 (25%) | 32 (17%) | 19 (12%) | |
| pT3 (subserosa) | 560 (66%) | 303 (60%) | 141 (76%) | 116 (75%) | |
| pT4 (serosa or other organs) | 46 (5.4%) | 20 (3.9%) | 10 (5.4%) | 16 (10%) | |
| pN stage | < 0.001 | ||||
| pN0 (0) | 504 (61%) | 354 (71%) | 98 (54%) | 52 (36%) | |
| pN1 (1–3) | 202 (25%) | 97 (20%) | 58 (32%) | 47 (33%) | |
| pN2 ( ≥ 4) | 115 (14%) | 46 (9.3%) | 24 (13%) | 45 (31%) | |
| AJCC disease stage | < 0.001 | ||||
| I | 193 (23%) | 152(30%) | 27 (14%) | 14 (8.8%) | |
| II | 281 (33%) | 187 (37%) | 60 (31%) | 34 (21%) | |
| III | 251 (29%) | 121(24%) | 64 (34%) | 66 (42%) | |
| IV | 126 (15%) | 41 (8.2%) | 40 (21%) | 45 (28%) | |
| Tumour differentiation | < 0.001 | ||||
| Well to moderate | 830 (91%) | 503 (94%) | 186 (92%) | 141 (82%) | |
| Poor | 84 (9.2%) | 34 (6.3%) | 18 (8.8%) | 32 (19%) | |
| MSI status | 0.046 | ||||
| Non-MSI-high | 736 (83%) | 421 (81%) | 165 (83%) | 150 (89%) | |
| MSI-high | 154 (17%) | 102 (20%) | 33 (17%) | 19 (11%) | |
| CIMP status | 0.71 | ||||
| Low/negative | 693 (81%) | 407 (80%) | 151 (83%) | 135 (83%) | |
| High | 159 (19%) | 99 (20%) | 32 (17%) | 28 (17%) | |
| Mean LINE-1 methylation | 62.5 ± 9.6 | 63.0 ± 9.9 | 62.1 ± 9.0 | 61.6 ± 9.5 | 0.20 |
| level ± SD (%) | |||||
| 0.41 | |||||
| Wild-type | 524 (59%) | 313 (60%) | 110 (55%) | 101 (59%) | |
| Mutant | 364 (41%) | 205 (40%) | 90 (45%) | 69 (41%) | |
| 0.50 | |||||
| Wild-type | 759 (85%) | 451 (86%) | 168 (85%) | 140 (82%) | |
| Mutant | 137 (15%) | 76 (14%) | 30 (15%) | 31 (18%) | |
| 0.035 | |||||
| Wild-type | 699 (84%) | 407 (83%) | 146 (79%) | 146 (90%) | |
| Mutant | 137 (16%) | 82 (17%) | 38 (21%) | 17 (10%) | |
| Membrane CDH1 (E-cadherin) expression | 0.97 | ||||
| Intact | 272 (47%) | 159 (47%) | 60 (48%) | 53 (46%) | |
| Lost | 306 (53%) | 180 (53%) | 65 (52%) | 61 (54%) | |
| Nuclear CTNNB1 (β-catenin) expression | 0.17 | ||||
| Negative | 473 (54%) | 292 (56%) | 96 (48%) | 85 (53%) | |
| Positive | 407 (46%) | 228 (44%) | 102 (52%) | 77 (48%) | |
| Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes | < 0.001 | ||||
| Negative/low | 651 (72%) | 352 (66%) | 163 (80%) | 136 (80%) | |
| Intermediate | 151 (17%) | 103 (19%) | 29 (14%) | 19 (11%) | |
| High | 102 (11%) | 76 (14%) | 11 (5.4%) | 15 (8.8%) | |
| Intratumoural periglandular reaction | 0.002 | ||||
| Negative/low | 126 (14%) | 59 (11%) | 33 (16%) | 34 (20%) | |
| Intermediate | 670 (74%) | 393 (74%) | 152 (75%) | 125 (73%) | |
| High | 109 (12%) | 79 (15%) | 18 (8.9%) | 12 (7.0%) | |
| Peritumoural lymphocytic reaction | 0.001 | ||||
| Negative/low | 145 (16%) | 69 (13%) | 37 (18%) | 39 (23%) | |
| Intermediate | 620 (69%) | 362 (68%) | 141 (69%) | 117 (68%) | |
| High | 138 (15%) | 98 (19%) | 25 (12%) | 15 (8.8%) | |
| Crohn's-like lymphoid reaction | 0.28 | ||||
| Negative/low | 577 (74%) | 314 (71%) | 145 (78%) | 118 (79%) | |
| Intermediate | 139 (18%) | 87 (20%) | 30 (16%) | 22 (15%) | |
| High | 60 (7.7%) | 39 (8.9%) | 11 (5.9%) | 10 (6.7%) | |
Percentage indicates the proportion of patients with a specific clinical, pathological, or molecular characteristic among all patients or in the strata of tumour budding at invasive front.
To compare categorical data between the tumour budding grade, the chi-square test was performed. To compare continuous variables, an analysis of variance was performed.
Abbreviations: AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; CIMP, CpG island methylator phenotype; HPFS, Health Professionals Follow-up Study; LINE-1, long-interspersed nucleotide element-1; MSI, microsatellite instability; NHS, Nurses’ Health Study; SD, standard deviation.
Correlation between intraepithelial and stromal T-cell densities and tumour budding at invasive front.
| Tumour budding | |
|---|---|
| Intraepithelial region | |
| CD3+ cells | |
| CD3+CD4+cells | N.S. |
| CD3+CD8+cells | |
| CD3+CD4+FOXP3+ cells | N.S. |
| CD3+CD4+CD45RO+ cells | N.S. |
| CD3+CD4+CD45RO− cells | N.S. |
| CD3+CD8+CD45RO+ cells | |
| CD3+CD8+CD45RO− cells | N.S. |
| Stromal region | |
| CD3+ cells | N.S. |
| CD3+CD4+cells | N.S. |
| CD3+CD8+cells | N.S. |
| CD3+CD4+FOXP3+ cells | N.S. |
| CD3+CD4+CD45RO+ cells | N.S. |
| CD3+CD4+CD45RO− cells | N.S. |
| CD3+CD8+CD45RO+ cells | N.S. |
| CD3+CD8+CD45RO− cells | N.S. |
Correlation coefficient and P value were calculated by the Spearman's correlation test between T-cell densities (cells/mm2; as continuous variables) and tumour budding at invasive front (number of tumour buds/0.785 mm2, as continuous variable).
Abbreviation: N.S., not significant.
Inverse probability weighting (IPW)-adjusted logistic regression analysis to assess the associations of intraepithelial T-cell densities (predictor) with tumour budding at invasive front (outcome) .
| Univariable OR (95% CI) | Multivariable OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Intraepithelial CD3+ cell density (cells/mm2) | ||
| C1 (lowest) | 1 (referent) | 1 (referent) |
| C2 (second) | 0.75 (0.52–1.09) | 0.74 (0.51–1.08) |
| C3 (third) | 0.62 (0.43–0.89) | 0.61 (0.43–0.88) |
| C4 (highest) | 0.64 (0.44–0.93) | 0.60 (0.41–0.88) |
| | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Intraepithelial CD3+CD8+ cell density (cells/mm2) | ||
| C1 (zero) | 1 (referent) | 1 (referent) |
| C2 (low) | 0.92 (0.64–1.32) | 0.92 (0.64–1.32) |
| C3 (intermediate) | 0.57 (0.40–0.82) | 0.57 (0.40–0.81) |
| C4 (high) | 0.52 (0.37–0.73) | 0.50 (0.35–0.70) |
| | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Intraepithelial CD3+CD8+CD45RO+ cell density (cells/mm2) | ||
| C1 (zero) | 1 (referent) | 1 (referent) |
| C2 (low) | 0.73 (0.51–1.06) | 0.73 (0.50–1.05) |
| C3 (intermediate) | 0.58 (0.41–0.82) | 0.57 (0.40–0.81) |
| C4 (high) | 0.47 (0.33–0.67) | 0.44 (0.31–0.63) |
| | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
As intraepithelial CD3+CD8+ (377 cases) and CD3+CD8+CD45RO+ (424 cases) cell densities were 0/mm2 (consisting the largest category C1), the remaining cases were divided into tertiles according to density (C2-C4).
IPW was applied to reduce a bias due to the availability of tumour tissue after cancer diagnosis (see “Statistical analysis” subsection for details).
The multivariable ordinal logistic regression model initially included age, sex, year of diagnosis, family history of colorectal cancer, tumour location, microsatellite instability, CpG island methylator phenotype, long-interspersed nucleotide element-1 methylation level, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations, CDH1 expression, and CTNNB1 expression. A backward elimination with a threshold P of 0.05 was used to select variables for the final model.
Ptrend was calculated by the linear trend across the ordinal categories of the intraepithelial T-cell densities (four ordinal predictor variables: C1-C4) in the IPW-adjusted ordinal logistic regression model for the number of tumour buds/0.785 mm2 at invasive front (tertile variables).
Fig. 2Inverse probability weighting (IPW)-adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves of colorectal cancer-specific and overall survival according to tumour budding at invasive front.
The P values were calculated using the weighted log-rank test for trend (two-sided). The table (bottom) shows the number of patients who remained alive and at risk of death at each time point after the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. .
Tumour budding at invasive front and patient survival with inverse probability weighting.
| Colorectal cancer-specific survival | Overall survival | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. ofcases | No. ofevents | UnivariableHR (95% CI) | MultivariableHR (95% CI) | No. ofevents | UnivariableHR (95% CI) | MultivariableHR (95% CI) | |
| Tumour budding ( | |||||||
| Low | 551 | 109 | 1 (referent) | 1 (referent) | 212 | 1 (referent) | 1 (referent) |
| Intermediate | 209 | 77 | 2.33 (1.72–3.15) | 1.75 (1.30–2.37) | 115 | 1.86 (1.47–2.36) | 1.50 (1.15–1.94) |
| High | 183 | 97 | 3.71 (2.78–4.97) | 2.13 (1.57–2.89) | 114 | 2.44 (1.88–3.16) | 1.81 (1.38–2.38) |
| | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |||
IPW was applied to reduce a bias due to the availability of tumour tissue after cancer diagnosis (see “Statistical analysis” subsection for details).
The multivariable Cox regression model initially included age, sex, year of diagnosis, family history of colorectal cancer, tumour location, tumour grade, AJCC disease stage, microsatellite instability, CpG island methylator phenotype, long-interspersed nucleotide element-1 methylation level, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations, CDH1 expression, CTNNB1 expression, tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes, intratumoural periglandular reaction, peritumoural lymphocytic reaction, Crohn's-like lymphoid reaction, intraepithelial CD3+CD8+CD45RO+T-cell densities, and poorly differentiated clusters. A backward elimination with a threshold P of 0.05 was used to select variables for the final models.
Ptrend was calculated by the linear trend across the ordinal categories of tumour budding grade at invasive front (low, intermediate, and high) in the IPW-adjusted Cox regression model.
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; IPW, inverse probability weighting.