John N Primrose1, Siân A Pugh1,2, Gareth Thomas1, Matthew Ellis1, Karwan Moutasim1,3, David Mant4. 1. Cancer Sciences Division, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 2. Medical Oncology, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, UK. 3. Cellular Pathology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. 4. Department of Primary Care, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following surgical and adjuvant treatment of primary colorectal cancer, many patients are routinely followed up with axial imaging (most commonly computerised tomography imaging) and blood carcinoembryonic antigen (a tumour marker) testing. Because fewer than one-fifth of patients will relapse, a large number of patients are followed up unnecessarily. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not the intratumoural immune signature could identify a cohort of patients with a relapse rate so low that follow-up is unnecessary. DESIGN: An observational study based on a secondary tissue collection of the tumours from participants in the FACS (Follow-up After Colorectal Cancer Surgery) trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour tissue was obtained from 550 out of 1202 participants in the FACS trial. Tissue microarrays were constructed and stained for cluster of differentiation (CD)3+ and CD45RO+ T lymphocytes as well as standard haematoxylin and eosin staining, with a view to manual and, subsequently, automated cell counting. RESULTS: The tissue microarrays were satisfactorily stained for the two immune markers. Manual cell counting proved possible on the arrays, but manually counting the number of cores for the entire study was found to not be feasible; therefore, an attempt was made to use automatic cell counting. Although it is clear that this approach is workable, there were both hardware and software problems; therefore, reliable data could not be obtained within the time frame of the study. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were the inability to use machine counting because of problems with both hardware and software, and the loss of critical scientific staff. Findings from this research indicate that this approach will be able to count intratumoural immune cells in the long term, but whether or not the original aim of the project proved possible is not known. CONCLUSIONS: The project was not successful in its aim because of the failure to achieve a reliable counting system. FUTURE WORK: Further work is needed to perfect immune cell machine counting and then complete the objectives of this study that are still relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41458548. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
BACKGROUND: Following surgical and adjuvant treatment of primary colorectal cancer, many patients are routinely followed up with axial imaging (most commonly computerised tomography imaging) and blood carcinoembryonic antigen (a tumour marker) testing. Because fewer than one-fifth of patients will relapse, a large number of patients are followed up unnecessarily. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not the intratumoural immune signature could identify a cohort of patients with a relapse rate so low that follow-up is unnecessary. DESIGN: An observational study based on a secondary tissue collection of the tumours from participants in the FACS (Follow-up After Colorectal Cancer Surgery) trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour tissue was obtained from 550 out of 1202 participants in the FACS trial. Tissue microarrays were constructed and stained for cluster of differentiation (CD)3+ and CD45RO+ T lymphocytes as well as standard haematoxylin and eosin staining, with a view to manual and, subsequently, automated cell counting. RESULTS: The tissue microarrays were satisfactorily stained for the two immune markers. Manual cell counting proved possible on the arrays, but manually counting the number of cores for the entire study was found to not be feasible; therefore, an attempt was made to use automatic cell counting. Although it is clear that this approach is workable, there were both hardware and software problems; therefore, reliable data could not be obtained within the time frame of the study. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were the inability to use machine counting because of problems with both hardware and software, and the loss of critical scientific staff. Findings from this research indicate that this approach will be able to count intratumoural immune cells in the long term, but whether or not the original aim of the project proved possible is not known. CONCLUSIONS: The project was not successful in its aim because of the failure to achieve a reliable counting system. FUTURE WORK: Further work is needed to perfect immune cell machine counting and then complete the objectives of this study that are still relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41458548. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Entities:
Keywords:
BIOMARKERS, HUMAN; CELL COUNT; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COLORECTAL SURGERY; RECURRENCE; STAINING AND LABELLING; T LYMPHOCYTES; TISSUE MICROARRAY; TUMOUR INFILTRATING T LYMPHOCYTES
Authors: Marc Van den Eynde; Bernhard Mlecnik; Gabriela Bindea; Tessa Fredriksen; Sarah E Church; Lucie Lafontaine; Nacilla Haicheur; Florence Marliot; Mihaela Angelova; Angela Vasaturo; Daniela Bruni; Anne Jouret-Mourin; Pamela Baldin; Nicolas Huyghe; Karin Haustermans; Annelies Debucquoy; Eric Van Cutsem; Jean-Francois Gigot; Catherine Hubert; Alex Kartheuser; Christophe Remue; Daniel Léonard; Viia Valge-Archer; Franck Pagès; Jean-Pascal Machiels; Jérôme Galon Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Peer Wille-Jørgensen; Ingvar Syk; Kenneth Smedh; Søren Laurberg; Dennis T Nielsen; Sune H Petersen; Andrew G Renehan; Erzsébet Horváth-Puhó; Lars Påhlman; Henrik T Sørensen Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David Mant; Alastair Gray; Siân Pugh; Helen Campbell; Stephen George; Alice Fuller; Bethany Shinkins; Andrea Corkhill; Jane Mellor; Elizabeth Dixon; Louisa Little; Rafael Perera-Salazar; John Primrose Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Jérôme Galon; Bernhard Mlecnik; Gabriela Bindea; Helen K Angell; Anne Berger; Christine Lagorce; Alessandro Lugli; Inti Zlobec; Arndt Hartmann; Carlo Bifulco; Iris D Nagtegaal; Richard Palmqvist; Giuseppe V Masucci; Gerardo Botti; Fabiana Tatangelo; Paolo Delrio; Michele Maio; Luigi Laghi; Fabio Grizzi; Martin Asslaber; Corrado D'Arrigo; Fernando Vidal-Vanaclocha; Eva Zavadova; Lotfi Chouchane; Pamela S Ohashi; Sara Hafezi-Bakhtiari; Bradly G Wouters; Michael Roehrl; Linh Nguyen; Yutaka Kawakami; Shoichi Hazama; Kiyotaka Okuno; Shuji Ogino; Peter Gibbs; Paul Waring; Noriyuki Sato; Toshihiko Torigoe; Kyogo Itoh; Prabhu S Patel; Shilin N Shukla; Yili Wang; Scott Kopetz; Frank A Sinicrope; Viorel Scripcariu; Paolo A Ascierto; Francesco M Marincola; Bernard A Fox; Franck Pagès Journal: J Pathol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Peter Bankhead; Maurice B Loughrey; José A Fernández; Yvonne Dombrowski; Darragh G McArt; Philip D Dunne; Stephen McQuaid; Ronan T Gray; Liam J Murray; Helen G Coleman; Jacqueline A James; Manuel Salto-Tellez; Peter W Hamilton Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Gena P Kanas; Aliki Taylor; John N Primrose; Wendy J Langeberg; Michael A Kelsh; Fionna S Mowat; Dominik D Alexander; Michael A Choti; Graeme Poston Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 4.790