2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.11.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characterization of the immunophenotype of the tumor budding and its prognostic implications in squamous cell carcinoma of the lung

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
51
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
51
0
Order By: Relevance
“…9, 10 Moreover, tumor budding has also been identified as an unfavorable prognostic indicator in lung squamous cell carcinomas and adenocarcinomas. 12, 13, 36 In a previous study on tumor budding in lung squamous cell carcinomas, the total number of tumor budding was counted using 1 HPF at ×200 magnification. 12 Using a maximal budding intensity, the presence of tumor budding (≥1 buds /1 HPF) was identified as an independent prognostic factor.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…9, 10 Moreover, tumor budding has also been identified as an unfavorable prognostic indicator in lung squamous cell carcinomas and adenocarcinomas. 12, 13, 36 In a previous study on tumor budding in lung squamous cell carcinomas, the total number of tumor budding was counted using 1 HPF at ×200 magnification. 12 Using a maximal budding intensity, the presence of tumor budding (≥1 buds /1 HPF) was identified as an independent prognostic factor.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…12, 13, 36 In a previous study on tumor budding in lung squamous cell carcinomas, the total number of tumor budding was counted using 1 HPF at ×200 magnification. 12 Using a maximal budding intensity, the presence of tumor budding (≥1 buds /1 HPF) was identified as an independent prognostic factor. 12 In our study, we used the same method to count tumor budding and that tumors with ≥10 buds /1 HPF was an independent prognostic factors for worse survival.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…30,35,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] However, it is less studied in gastric cancer. Recently, Tanaka et al 61 demonstrated that budding was related to lymph node involvement along with several other clinicopathologic characteristics of tumor in a large series of gastric cancer patients from all pathologic tumor stages.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…13,14 In their attempts to unravel the biologic signifi cance of tumor budding, investigators have noted that tumor budding may be associated with epithelial mesenchymal transition, thereby increasing cancer cell migration and invasion. [15][16][17][18] In breast cancer, immune-induced responses have been shown to promote epithelial mesenchymal transition. [19][20][21] More importantly, studies have demonstrated that tumor-associated macrophages-especially those of the tumor-promoting M2 phenotype-are frequently found within regions of tumor budding 22 and that they have contributed to induction of cancer cell epithelial mesenchymal transition at the tumor invasive front.…”
Section: [ 1 4 8 # 3 C H E S T S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ]mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We then classifi ed tumor budding as grade 0 (zero buds per HPF), grade 1 (one to four) ( Fig 2C ), grade 2 (fi ve to nine), or grade 3 ( Ն 10) ( Fig 2D ). 14,16,17 Nuclear atypia was identified in the area with the highest degree of atypia and was graded as mild, moderate, or severe. 29,33 Mitoses were evaluated using 50 HPFs at 3 400 magnification (0.237 mm 2 field) in areas with the highest mitotic activity and were counted as the average number of mitotic fi gures per 10 HPFs; they were classifi ed as either low (zero to one mitotic fi gure per 10 HPFs), intermediate (two to four), or high (fi ve or more).…”
Section: Histologic Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%