4.6 Article

Cancer gland rupture as a potential risk factor for lymph node metastasis in early colorectal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion

期刊

HISTOPATHOLOGY
卷 76, 期 4, 页码 603-612

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/his.14022

关键词

algorithm; C-shaped gland; depth of invasion; guidelines; risk assessment; T1 colorectal cancer; tumour budding; vascular invasion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Lymph node metastasis (LNM) has not been found in more than 85% of patients with early invasive colorectal adenocarcinoma (T1-CRAC) who undergo surgery after therapeutic endoscopy due to the risk for LNM. Better histological risk assessment for LNM of endoscopically resected T1-CRAC is important to avoid unnecessary additional surgery. Methods and results We evaluated cancer gland rupture (CGR), i.e. cancer glands with a discontinuous epithelial lining, at the invasive front, as a potential risk factor for LNM by histological examination of differentiated T1-CRAC from 217 patients who underwent surgery with or without therapeutic endoscopy. CGR was represented by C-shaped neoplastic glands with a variable inflammatory or stromal reaction, and was occasionally accompanied by mucus lake or abscess formation. CGR was observed in 168 (77%) cases, including all 20 cases with LNM, and the odds ratio of LNM was higher for CGR than for deep invasion (depth of submucosal invasion >= 1000 mu m). All cases with LNM were found among 148 cases with deep invasion and positive CGR, whereas no LNM was detected in 29 cases with deep invasion and negative CGR, regardless of vascular invasion or tumour budding. In the 148 cases, LNM was detected in 18 (19%) of 93 cases with positive vascular invasion or high-grade tumour budding, and in two (4%) of 55 cases without either. Conclusions Our findings suggest that CGR is an easily applied and objective histological finding for predicting LNM that could be useful for assessing the risk for LNM of endoscopically resected T1-CRAC with deep invasion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据