| Literature DB >> 36230870 |
Hayel Derani1, Anne-Sophie Becker1, Oliver Hakenberg2, Andreas Erbersdobler1.
Abstract
The "Cellular Dissociation Grade" (CDG) is based on tumor cell budding and cell nest size. Many studies have examined the CDG in squamous cell carcinomas of other organs such as the lungs, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, cervix and esophagus. In this study, the CDG was examined in 109 cases of invasive penile squamous cell carcinoma that were treated at the University Medicine Rostock between 2014 and 2022. Furthermore, its correlation with the pathologic status of regional lymph nodes (pN) as the main prognostic factor was verified. Finally, cellular dissociation grading was compared with classic WHO grading. The results showed that pN in penile squamous cell carcinoma showed a highly significant association with the CDG and no statistically significant association with WHO grading. These results support the notion that cellular dissociation grading is an important prognostic factor for squamous cell carcinoma.Entities:
Keywords: WHO grade; cell nest size; cellular dissociation grade; lymph node metastases; lymphadenectomy; pN; penis; prognosis; squamous cell carcinoma; tumor budding
Year: 2022 PMID: 36230870 PMCID: PMC9564293 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14194949
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Cellular dissociation grading [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11].
| Histological Feature | Classification | Score & Grade |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| Score 1 |
| 1–5 tumor buds/HPF | Score 2 | |
| >5 tumor buds/HPF | Score 3 | |
|
| >15 cells per nest | Score 1 |
| single cell invasion | Score 4 | |
|
| Sum TB + CNS = 2–3 | CDG-1 |
| Sum TB + CNS = 6–7 | CDG-3 |
* Tumor bud: Tumor cell nest with <5 cells.
Figure 1CNS(1) + TB(1) = CDG-1 _10.0×.
Figure 2CNS(3) + TB(2) = CDG-2 _10.0×.
Figure 3CNS(4) + TB(3) = CDG-3 _10.0×.
Figure 4WHO grade distribution.
Figure 5pT distribution.
Figure 6pN distribution.
Figure 7Flowchart of distribution of both grading systems.
Figure 8Distribution of both grading systems with pN0 cases.
Figure 9Distribution of both grading systems with pN+ cases.
Relationship with pN.
| Statistical Test | WHO-G | CDG | TB | CNS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asymptotic Significance-Pearson Chi-Square | 0.112 | <0.001–0.033 | <0.001–0.057 | 0.006–0.029 |
| Between-subjects effects-univariate analysis | 0.018 | <0.001–0.010 | <0.001–0.012 | 0.004–0.041 |
Figure 10ROC curve regarding prognosis for pN.
Interobserver concordance for CDG evaluation.
| Statistical Test | Cohens Kappa | Fleiss, Kappa Obs.1,2,3 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obs.1 vs. Obs.2 | Obs.1 vs. Obs.3 | Obs.2 vs. Obs.3 | ||
| Value | 0.495 | 0.484 | 0.565 | 0.512 |
Figure 11CDG distribution for all observers.