A combined scoring system for tumor budding and poorly differentiated clusters in colorectal cancer: A retrospective study

Clinical Surgical Oncology Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-03 DOI:10.1016/j.cson.2025.100073
Adil Aziz Khan, Sana Ahuja, Sristi Barman, Sufian Zaheer
{"title":"A combined scoring system for tumor budding and poorly differentiated clusters in colorectal cancer: A retrospective study","authors":"Adil Aziz Khan,&nbsp;Sana Ahuja,&nbsp;Sristi Barman,&nbsp;Sufian Zaheer","doi":"10.1016/j.cson.2025.100073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Optimal management of stage II colorectal cancer (CRC) patients is complex due to variability in oncologic outcomes. Tumor budding (TB) and poorly differentiated clusters (PDCs) have emerged as significant prognostic factors. This study evaluates the prognostic significance of a combined scoring system of TB and PDCs in CRC patients.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>A retrospective study included 68 patients who underwent curative surgery. H&amp;E-stained sections were assessed for TB and PDCs. TB was graded according to ITBCC recommendations: Bd1 (0–4 buds), Bd2 (5–9 buds), and Bd3 (≥10 buds). PDCs were counted as clusters of ≥5 ​cells without gland formation: PDC1 (0–4 clusters), PDC2 (5–9 clusters), and PDC3 (≥10 clusters). TB and PDC scores were combined, resulting in a score range of 2–4. Histological sections were also evaluated for lymphovascular invasion (LVI), perineural invasion (PNI), and other pathological parameters. Statistical analyses were performed using Chi-Square and Fisher's exact tests.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>TB was high in 32.35% of cases and low in 47.06%. High PDCs were present in 47.06% of cases. The combined scoring system showed 55.88% of cases with a score of 3, indicating intermediate risk. Statistical significance was observed between combined scores and T stage, LVI, PNI, histological grade, extranodal extension, and tumor size (p ​&lt; ​0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The combined scoring system for TB and PDCs demonstrated superior prognostic performance compared to individual assessments. This system provides a more comprehensive risk stratification, which may guide more tailored treatment decisions in CRC management.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100278,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Surgical Oncology","volume":"4 1","pages":"Article 100073"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773160X25000029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Optimal management of stage II colorectal cancer (CRC) patients is complex due to variability in oncologic outcomes. Tumor budding (TB) and poorly differentiated clusters (PDCs) have emerged as significant prognostic factors. This study evaluates the prognostic significance of a combined scoring system of TB and PDCs in CRC patients.

Materials and methods

A retrospective study included 68 patients who underwent curative surgery. H&E-stained sections were assessed for TB and PDCs. TB was graded according to ITBCC recommendations: Bd1 (0–4 buds), Bd2 (5–9 buds), and Bd3 (≥10 buds). PDCs were counted as clusters of ≥5 ​cells without gland formation: PDC1 (0–4 clusters), PDC2 (5–9 clusters), and PDC3 (≥10 clusters). TB and PDC scores were combined, resulting in a score range of 2–4. Histological sections were also evaluated for lymphovascular invasion (LVI), perineural invasion (PNI), and other pathological parameters. Statistical analyses were performed using Chi-Square and Fisher's exact tests.

Results

TB was high in 32.35% of cases and low in 47.06%. High PDCs were present in 47.06% of cases. The combined scoring system showed 55.88% of cases with a score of 3, indicating intermediate risk. Statistical significance was observed between combined scores and T stage, LVI, PNI, histological grade, extranodal extension, and tumor size (p ​< ​0.05).

Conclusion

The combined scoring system for TB and PDCs demonstrated superior prognostic performance compared to individual assessments. This system provides a more comprehensive risk stratification, which may guide more tailored treatment decisions in CRC management.
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
结直肠癌肿瘤出芽和低分化簇的联合评分系统:一项回顾性研究
背景:由于肿瘤预后的可变性,II期结直肠癌(CRC)患者的最佳管理是复杂的。肿瘤萌芽(TB)和低分化簇(PDCs)已成为重要的预后因素。本研究评估了结核和前列腺癌联合评分系统在结直肠癌患者中的预后意义。材料与方法回顾性研究68例手术治疗患者。H&; e染色切片检测TB和PDCs。根据ITBCC推荐的结核病分级:Bd1(0-4个芽),Bd2(5-9个芽)和Bd3(≥10个芽)。不形成腺体的PDCs以≥5个细胞为簇计数:PDC1(0-4个簇)、PDC2(5 - 9个簇)和PDC3(≥10个簇)。结合TB和PDC评分,得到2-4分的评分范围。组织切片也评估淋巴血管侵犯(LVI),神经周围侵犯(PNI)和其他病理参数。采用卡方检验和Fisher精确检验进行统计分析。结果stb高发病例占32.35%,低发病例占47.06%。47.06%的病例存在高PDCs。综合评分系统中,55.88%的病例得分为3分,为中等风险。综合评分与T分期、LVI、PNI、组织学分级、结外扩展、肿瘤大小之间的差异均有统计学意义(p <;0.05)。结论与单独评估相比,TB和PDCs联合评分系统具有更好的预后效果。该系统提供了更全面的风险分层,可以指导CRC管理中更有针对性的治疗决策。
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
Seroma and lymphorrhea after breast surgery: from risk factors to innovative therapies Locoregional combined systemic therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in the era of immunotherapy: a narrative review A study on the safety of robotic surgery for older rectal cancer patients from a nutritional perspective Emerging advances in integrating minimally invasive surgery into the therapeutic landscape of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer Erratum regarding missing statements in previously published articles
×
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:604180095
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