Neuroendocrine Differentiation, Microsatellite Instability, and Tumor-infiltrating Lymphocytes in Advanced Colorectal Cancer With BRAF Mutation

Digiacomo, Nunzio; Bolzacchini, Elena; Veronesi, Giovanni; Cerutti, Roberta; Sahnane, Nora; Pinotti, Graziella; Bregni, Marco; Artale, Salvatore; Verusio, Claudio; Crivelli, Filippo; Capella, Carlo; Sessa, Fausto; Furlan, Daniela

doi:10.1016/j.clcc.2018.12.003

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, in contrast to previous works [8], the relationship between tumor budding and MSI-H here cannot be confirmed. This result is supported by work from other groups showing no difference in MSI status [9,10]. Finally, although mucinous cancers have a more pushing tumor growth pattern, our findings again underline no relationship between budding and histological subtype.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Refining the ITBCC tumor budding scoring system with a “zero-budding” category in colorectal cancer

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tumor budding scoring guidelines from the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) for colorectal cancer propose three groups: BD1 (0–4 buds/0.785 mm2), BD2 (5–9 buds/0.785 mm2), and BD3 (10 or more buds/0.785 mm2). Here, we investigate whether a fourth scoring category, namely zero buds, may have additional clinical relevance. The number of tumor buds/0.785 mm2 was scored in 959 cases. Those with zero tumor buds were considered BD0, while a new BD1 category of 1–4 buds was proposed. Associations of both scoring approaches with clinicopathological features were analyzed. Conventional ITBCC scoring showed expected associations with unfavorable histopathological prognostic factors. In total, 111/959 (11.6%) were BD0. A significant difference was found when BD0 was compared statistically to BD1 (1–4 buds) for pT, TNM, tumor grade, and lymphatic, venous, and perineural invasion (p < 0.01, all). Tumors with BD0 occur relatively frequently and contribute additional information on tumor behavior. BD0 should be considered for subsequent ITBCC guidelines.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Refining the ITBCC tumor budding scoring system with a “zero-budding” category in colorectal cancer

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The speed of proliferation of Ki-67 cells accelerated after surgery, which accelerated the deterioration of the patient's condition (Digiacomo et al, 2019). The choice of laparoscopic surgery not only makes it possible to find small lesions that cannot be found by open surgery, but also has a comparative advantage in reducing the local recurrence rate and surgical operation of the tumor (Fahim et al, 2019;Ahiko et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term results of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for colorectal cancer in Huaihe River Basin of China

Jia

Xie

et al. 2022

Food Sci. Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we aimed to compare clinical efficacy of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for colorectal cancer in the Huaihe River Basin in China. A total of 92 patients with colorectal cancer were selected as subjects. Patients were divided into control group (open surgery, n = 27 cases) and test group (laparoscopic surgery, n = 28 cases). Our results showed that the duration of operation (122.54 ± 14.85) min and length of incision (4.51 ± 1.065) cm were shorter in the experimental group than those in the control group. The intraoperative blood loss of the experimental group was (161.12 ± 10.694) ml, which was less than that of the control group (218.53 ± 15.369) ml (P < 0.05). Patients in the experimental group have higher Five-year survival rate and lower incidence of postoperative complications than those in the control group (all P < 0.05). In conclusion, in the treatment of colorectal cancer, laparoscopic surgery has a better clinical effect than open surgery, which is worthy of clinical application.

show abstract

“…Although both subsets derive from a serrated polyp due to the presence of the BRAF mutation and are clinically associated with a detrimental patient outcome, BRAF mutant/MSS colorectal cancers diverge from BRAF /MSI cancers with the development of clinicopathologically and genetically distinct aberrations [27]. Histologically, BRAF mutant/MSS cancers show more adverse morphological features compared with BRAF /MSI cancers, such as frequent tumor budding; high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomatous component; a lack of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes; frequent lymphatic, perineural, and venous invasion; and increased lymph-node metastases [38,39,40]. In addition, it is of interest to recall that in one study [41] BRAF mutant CRCs on the basis of gene expression have been split in two subtypes called BM1 and BM2.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

BRAF Mutation in Colorectal Rhabdoid and Poorly Differentiated Medullary Carcinomas

Bolzacchini

Digiacomo

Marrazzo³

et al. 2019

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Colorectal rhabdoid carcinomas (CRbCs) are very rare and aggressive cancers. The BRAF mutation and CpG island methylator phenotype have been reported to be common features of CRbCs. This study reviews the literature about CRbCs and analyzes the clinicopathological and molecular profiles of seven CRbCs characterized by large discohesive cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm, showing hyaline inclusions and large rounded to bean-shaped nuclei. For comparison, we included four poorly differentiated medullary carcinomas (PDMCs) with focal aspects mimicking rhabdoid features. Overall survival was poor in both subsets, with 78% of patients dying of disease within 2–11 months. The main features of CRbCs were: Loss of/reduced SMARCB1/INI expression, intense vimentin immunostaining, and dense neutrophilic infiltration. The PDMCs were positive for pancytokeratin but negative for vimentin and showed moderate peritumoral/intratumoral CD8+ lymphocytes. All PDMCs showed SMARCB1(INI-1) expression. The coexistence of BRAF and TP53 mutations was observed in 80% of CRbCs and PDMCs. PDMCs always showed microsatellite instability and CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP), while CRbCs were CIMP negative and exhibited microsatellite instability (MSI) in two out of seven cases. CRbCs are characterized by BRAF and TP53 mutations. Loss/reduced expression of nuclear SMARCB1/INI, intense vimentin immunostaining, dense neutrophilic infiltration, and low frequency of CIMP are useful markers to recognize these rare aggressive tumors.

show abstract

Neuroendocrine Differentiation, Microsatellite Instability, and Tumor-infiltrating Lymphocytes in Advanced Colorectal Cancer With BRAF Mutation

Cited by 13 publications

References 38 publications

Refining the ITBCC tumor budding scoring system with a “zero-budding” category in colorectal cancer

Refining the ITBCC tumor budding scoring system with a “zero-budding” category in colorectal cancer

Long-term results of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for colorectal cancer in Huaihe River Basin of China

BRAF Mutation in Colorectal Rhabdoid and Poorly Differentiated Medullary Carcinomas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About