Microenvironment, systemic inflammatory response and tumor markers considering consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer

Introduction: Colorectal carcinomas (CRC) are one of the most frequent malignancies worldwide. Based on gene expression profile analysis, CRCs can be classified into four distinct subtypes also known as the consensus molecular subtypes (CMS), which predict biological behaviour. Besides CMS, several other aspects of tumor microenvironment (TME) and systemic inflammatory response (SIR) influence the outcome of CRC patients. TME and inflammation have important role in the immune (CMS1) and mesenchymal (CMS4) subtypes, however, the relationship between these and systemic inflammation has not been assessed yet. Our objective was to evaluate the connection between CMS, TME and SIR, and to analyze the correlation between these markers and routinely used tumor markers, such as CEA (Carcinoembryonic Antigen) and CA19-9 (Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9). Methods: FFPE (Formalin Fixed Paraffin Embedded) samples of 185 CRC patients were collected. TME was described using tumor-stroma ratio (TSR), Klintrup-Makinen (KM) grade, and Glasgow Microenvironment Score (GMS). CMS classification was performed on tissue microarray using MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 and MSH6, and pan-cytokeratin, CDX2, FRMD6, HTR2B and ZEB1 immunohistochemical stains. Pre-operative tumor marker levels and inflammatory markers [C-reactive protein - CRP, albumin, absolute neutrophil count (ANC), absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), absolute platelet count (APC)] and patient history were retrieved using MedSolution database. Results: Amongst TME-markers, TSR correlated most consistently with adverse clinicopathological features (p < 0.001) and overall survival (p < 0.001). Elevated CRP and modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) were associated with worse outcome and aggressive phenotype, similarly to tumor markers CEA and CA19-9. Stroma–Tumor Marker score (STM score), a new combined score of CA19-9 and TSR delivered the second best prognostication after mGPS. Furthermore, CMS4 showed association with TSR and several laboratory markers (albumin and platelet derived factors), but not with other SIR descriptors. CMS did not show any association with CEA and CA19-9 tumor markers. Conclusion: More routinely available TME, SIR and tumor markers alone and in combination deliver reliable prognostic data for choosing the patients with higher risk for propagation. CMS4 is linked with high TSR and poor prognosis, but in overall, CMS-classification showed only limited effect on SIR- and tumor-markers.