| Literature DB >> 35326582 |
Muhammad Joan Ailia1, Nishant Thakur1, Yosep Chong1, Kwangil Yim1.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the prognostic significance, assessment methods, and molecular features of tumor budding (TB). A literature search of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and eleven cohort studies (seven cervical and four endometrial cancers) was conducted. Three assessment methods for TB involving 2009 patients were collected and constituted in the analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that TB was a marker of poor survival, regardless of the cancer origin site or assessment method (overall survival: hazard ratio [HR], 2.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.82-3.17; disease-free survival: HR, 3.32; 95% CI, 2.46-4.48). In endometrial cancers, TB is associated with the epithelial-mesenchymal transition, microvessel density, and decreased hormone receptor expression. Thus, we suggest TB as a poor prognostic marker for all gynecologic cancers.Entities:
Keywords: gynecologic cancer; pathology; prognosis; systematic review; tumor budding
Year: 2022 PMID: 35326582 PMCID: PMC8946491 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14061431
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1PRISMA flow diagram showing the study selection process.
Main characteristics of all gynecological cancer studies included in the meta-analysis.
| Site | Authors Year | Histology | Patients ( | Staining Method | Assessment Method | Field of View | Cutoff | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cervix | Huang et al., 2016 [ | SCC | 834 | Pancytokeratin (AE1/AE3) | TB-10HPF | ×200 | ≥5 | OS, DFS |
| Satabongkoch et al., 2017 [ | ADC | 129 | HE | TB-10HPF | ×400 | ≥15 | DFS | |
| Jesinghaus et al., 2018 [ | SCC | 125 | HE | TB-YN | ×200 | >0 | OS *, DFS * | |
| Park et al., 2020 [ | SCC, ADC | 136 | HE | TB-1HPF | ×200 | ≥5 | OS, DFS | |
| Stanulović et al., 2020 [ | SCC, ADC | 91 | HE | TB-YN | ×200 | >0 | - | |
| Zare et al., 2020 [ | SCC | 94 | HE | TB-YN | ×200 | >0 | OS *, DFS * | |
| Cao et al., 2020 [ | SCC | 122 | HE | TB-10HPF | ×200 | >0 | - | |
| Endometrium | Koyuncuoglu et al., 2012 [ | - | 112 | HE | TB-1 HPF | ×200 | ≥5 | OS |
| Park et al., 2019 [ | - | 96 | HE | TB-1 HPF | ×200 | ≥5 | OS | |
| Kluz et al., 2020 [ | - | 137 | Laminin 5γ2 | TB-10 HP | ×200 | ≥5 | - | |
| Rau, T.T. et al., 2020 [ | - | 255 | HE | TB-1 HPF | ×200 (0.785 mm2) | ≥5 | OS, DFS |
Abbreviations: SCC: Squamous cell carcinoma, OS: Overall survival, DFS: Disease-free survival, ADC: Adeno cell carcinoma, HE: Hematoxylin and eosin stain, TB-YN: Tumor budding absent/present, TB-1 HPF Tumor budding at 1 high power field, TB-10 HPF: Tumor budding at 10 high power field. * These data are indirectly extracted by calculating the odd ratio from the sample size. ** CD34 is used for excluding tumor emboli.
Figure 2Subgroup hazard ratios analyzing the tumor budding expression, (a) overall survival, (b) disease-free survival in gynecological cancer patients by organs. ■ The location of square epresents the hazard atio and the size means individual effect of studies. The black line represents 95% confidence iterval of the study. ◆ The diamond represents pooled hazard ratio and its edge shows 95% confidence interval.
Figure 3Subgroup hazard ratios analyzing the tumor budding expression, (a) overall survival, (b) disease-free survival in gynecological cancer patients by assessment method. ■ The location of square epresents the hazard atio and the size means individual effect of studies. The black line represents 95% confidence iterval of the study. ◆ The diamond represents pooled hazard ratio and its edge shows 95% confidence interval.
Summary of a meta-analysis evaluating the relationship of tumor budding with clinicopathological parameters of gynecological cancer.
| Parameters | Number of Studies | Number of Patients | Pooled OR (95% CI) | Heterogeneity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2 (%) | Model | ||||||
| Age | 3 | 345 | 1.77 [0.97, 3.20] | 0.06 | 65 | 0.06 | Fixed |
| Stage (III and IV) | 7 | 1361 | 1.94 [1.41, 2.66] | <0.001 | 19 | 0.28 | Fixed |
| Depth of invasion (over than half) | 2 | 225 | 2.68 [1.33, 5.40] | 0.006 | 71 | 0.06 | Fixed |
| N stage (N1, N2, N3) | 6 | 1145 | 4.05 [2.93, 5.60] | <0.001 | 0% | 0.59 | Fixed |
| M stage (M1) | 2 | 732 | 4.60 [1.67, 12.67] | 0.003 | 0% | 0.85 | Fixed |
| Grade (G3) | 7 | 1309 | 2.26 [1.70, 2.99] | <0.001 | 60% | 0.02 | Fixed |
| Lymphovascular invasion (present) | 7 | 1270 | 4.18 [3.09, 5.66] | <0.001 | 71% | 0.002 | Fixed |
| Perineural invasion (present) | 4 | 950 | 2.25 [1.31, 3.88] | 0.004 | 23% | 0.04 | Fixed |
Summary of tumor budding’s relationship with molecular markers.
| Site | References | EMT, Immune Cell and Other Markers | Main Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endometrium | Koyuncuoglu et al., 2012 [ | E-cadherin | Tumor budding adversely correlated with the presence of E-cadherin expression, but this relation was not statistically significant ( |
| Park et al., 2019 [ | ER, PR, p53, E-cadherin, β-catenin | Tumor budding was associated with reduced expression of hormone receptors (ER and PR) and aberrant β-catenin expression combined with loss of E-cadherin expression. ( | |
| Rau, T.T. et al., 2020 [ | Molecular classification (POLEmut, MMRd, NSMP, and p53abn) | Survival stratification of tumor budding was best in the NSMP group followed by the MMRd group. | |
| Kluz et al., 2020 [ | CD34 | Microvascular density is statistically significant with tumor budding (R = 0.3, |
Abbrevation: MMRd: Mismatch repair deficient, NSMP: Non-specific mutation profile.
Figure 4Description of three representative tumor budding assessment method.