4.7 Review

From Dukes-MAC Staging System to Molecular Classification: Evolving Concepts in Colorectal Cancer

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23169455

Keywords

Dukes MAC staging; colorectal cancer; molecular classification; TNM; epithelial-mesenchymal transition

Funding

  1. George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technologies of Targu Mures, Romania [615/5/2019]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This historical review covers the evolution of colorectal carcinoma staging systems, from classical classifications to molecular classifications, including the author's contributions in IHC-based molecular classification of CRC. The latest prognostic biomarkers play a crucial role in targeted therapy decisions.
This historical review aimed to summarize the main changes that colorectal carcinoma (CRC) staging systems suffered over time, starting from the creation of the classical Duke's classification, modified Astler-Coller staging, internationally used TNM (T-primary tumor, N-regional lymph nodes' status, M-distant metastases) staging system, and ending with molecular classifications and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) concept. Besides currently used staging parameters, this paper briefly presents the author's contribution in creating an immunohistochemical (IHC)-based molecular classification of CRC. It refers to the identification of three molecular groups of CRCs (epithelial, mesenchymal and hybrid) based on the IHC markers E-cadherin, beta-catenin, maspin, and vimentin. Maspin is a novel IHC antibody helpful for tumor budding assessment, which role depends on its subcellular localization (cytoplasm vs. nuclei). The long road of updating the staging criteria for CRC has not come to an end. The newest prognostic biomarkers, aimed to be included in the molecular classifications, exert predictive roles, and become more and more important for targeted therapy decisions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available