Tumor Budding Assessment in Colorectal Carcinoma: Normalization Revisited.

David P Cyr, Cherry Pun, Sameer Shivji, Bojana Mitrovic, Kai Duan, Rossi Tomin, Aysegul Sari, Amanpreet Brar, Siham Zerhouni, Mantaj S Brar, Erin D Kennedy, Carol J Swallow, Richard Kirsch, James R Conner
{"title":"Tumor Budding Assessment in Colorectal Carcinoma: Normalization Revisited.","authors":"David P Cyr, Cherry Pun, Sameer Shivji, Bojana Mitrovic, Kai Duan, Rossi Tomin, Aysegul Sari, Amanpreet Brar, Siham Zerhouni, Mantaj S Brar, Erin D Kennedy, Carol J Swallow, Richard Kirsch, James R Conner","doi":"10.1097/pas.0000000000002166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Tumor budding (TB) is a powerful prognostic factor in colorectal cancer (CRC). An internationally standardized method for its assessment (International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference [ITBCC] method) has been adopted by most CRC pathology protocols. This method requires that TB counts are reported by field area (0.785 mm2) rather than objective lens and a normalization factor is applied for this purpose. However, the validity of this approach is yet to be tested. We sought to validate the ITBCC method with a particular emphasis on normalization as a tool for standardization. In a cohort of 365 stage I-III CRC, both normalized and non-normalized TB were significantly associated with disease-specific survival and recurrence-free survival (P<0.0001). Examining both 0.95 and 0.785 mm2 field areas in a subset of patients (n=200), we found that normalization markedly overcorrects TB counts: Counts obtained in a 0.95 mm2 hotspot field were reduced by an average of 17.5% following normalization compared with only 3.8% when counts were performed in an actual 0.785 mm2 field. This resulted in 45 (11.3%) cases being downgraded using ITBCC grading criteria following normalization, compared with only 5 cases (1.3%, P=0.0007) downgraded when a true 0.785 mm2 field was examined. In summary, the prognostic value of TB was retained regardless of whether TB counts in a 0.95 mm2 field were normalized. Normalization resulted in overcorrecting TB counts with consequent downgrading of most borderline cases. This has implications for risk stratification and adjuvant treatment decisions, and suggests the need to re-evaluate the role of normalization in TB assessment.","PeriodicalId":501610,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Surgical Pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Surgical Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0000000000002166","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Tumor budding (TB) is a powerful prognostic factor in colorectal cancer (CRC). An internationally standardized method for its assessment (International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference [ITBCC] method) has been adopted by most CRC pathology protocols. This method requires that TB counts are reported by field area (0.785 mm2) rather than objective lens and a normalization factor is applied for this purpose. However, the validity of this approach is yet to be tested. We sought to validate the ITBCC method with a particular emphasis on normalization as a tool for standardization. In a cohort of 365 stage I-III CRC, both normalized and non-normalized TB were significantly associated with disease-specific survival and recurrence-free survival (P<0.0001). Examining both 0.95 and 0.785 mm2 field areas in a subset of patients (n=200), we found that normalization markedly overcorrects TB counts: Counts obtained in a 0.95 mm2 hotspot field were reduced by an average of 17.5% following normalization compared with only 3.8% when counts were performed in an actual 0.785 mm2 field. This resulted in 45 (11.3%) cases being downgraded using ITBCC grading criteria following normalization, compared with only 5 cases (1.3%, P=0.0007) downgraded when a true 0.785 mm2 field was examined. In summary, the prognostic value of TB was retained regardless of whether TB counts in a 0.95 mm2 field were normalized. Normalization resulted in overcorrecting TB counts with consequent downgrading of most borderline cases. This has implications for risk stratification and adjuvant treatment decisions, and suggests the need to re-evaluate the role of normalization in TB assessment.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
结直肠癌的肿瘤萌发评估:规范化再探讨
肿瘤萌发(TB)是结直肠癌(CRC)的一个强有力的预后因素。大多数 CRC 病理方案都采用了国际标准化方法(国际肿瘤萌发共识会议 [ITBCC] 方法)对其进行评估。该方法要求按视野面积(0.785 平方毫米)而非物镜报告 TB 计数,并为此应用归一化因子。然而,这种方法的有效性还有待检验。我们试图对 ITBCC 方法进行验证,并特别强调将归一化作为标准化的工具。在一个由 365 例 I-III 期 CRC 组成的队列中,归一化和非归一化 TB 均与疾病特异性生存期和无复发生存期显著相关(P<0.0001)。在对患者子集(n=200)的 0.95 和 0.785 平方毫米视野进行检查后,我们发现归一化会明显过度校正结核计数:在 0.95 平方毫米的热点区域中获得的计数在归一化后平均减少了 17.5%,而在实际的 0.785 平方毫米区域中进行计数时仅减少了 3.8%。这导致 45 例(11.3%)病例在归一化后根据 ITBCC 分级标准被降级,而在检查真正的 0.785 平方毫米区域时,只有 5 例(1.3%,P=0.0007)病例被降级。总之,无论是否将 0.95 平方毫米视野中的结核计数归一化,结核的预后价值都得以保留。归一化会导致结核计数的过度校正,从而使大多数边缘病例降级。这对风险分层和辅助治疗决策有影响,并表明有必要重新评估正常化在结核评估中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Odontogenic Myxomas Harbor Recurrent Copy Number Alterations and a Distinct Methylation Signature. Characteristics and Clinical Value of MYC, BCL2, and BCL6 Rearrangement Detected by Next-generation Sequencing in DLBCL. Intra-ampullary Papillary Tubular Neoplasm (IAPN): Clinicopathologic Analysis of 72 Cases Highlights the Distinctive Characteristics of a Poorly Recognized Entity. PON3::LCN1 and HTN3::MSANTD3 Gene Fusions With NR4A3/NR4A2 Expression in Salivary Acinic Cell Carcinoma. Yolk Sac Differentiation in Endometrial Carcinoma: Incidence and Clinicopathologic Features of Somatically Derived Yolk Sac Tumors Versus Carcinomas With Nonspecific Immunoexpression of Yolk Sac Markers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1