Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

, Volume 39, Issue 5, pp 494–503 | Cite as

Prognostic value of ploidy, cell proliferation kinetics, and conventional clinicopathologic criteria in patients with colorectal carcinoma

A prospective study
  • Nicola Pietra
  • Leopoldo Sarli
  • Giuliano Sansebastiano
  • Gloria Saccani Jotti
  • Anacleto Peracchia
Original Contributions


PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to obtain additional biologic determinants that may be of use in segregating into subgroups with different prognosis patients with similarly staged colorectal cancers. METHODS: Between 1989 and 1991, a prospective study of prognostic factors has been performed in a group of 98 consecutive, unselected patients who underwent curative resections for primary untreated large bowel carcinoma. The fate of all patients is known at three years after operation. Clinical and pathologic data were recorded at the time of presentation and operation, and patients have been the subjects of regular follow-up. Tumor DNA content was determined by flow cytometry, and cell proliferative activity was determined by autoradiography with tritiated thymidine labeling index (LI). RESULTS: Univariate analysis revealed that the most important predictors of survival (P<0.001) were the presence of positive lymph nodes, the presence of preoperative complications, Dukes stage, and LI. The multivariate analysis showed that Dukes stage (P<0.002) and LI(P<0.0001) were the only factors significantly related to survival. Disease-free survival was influenced significantly by Dukes stage (P<0.001), LI, according to the classification in the two groups of high and low proliferative activity, respectively, (P<0.0001), LI, calculated as a continuous variable (P<0.0002), and the presence of lymph node metastases (P<0.003). Outcome (favorable/unfavorable) was influenced significantly by Dukes stage (P<0.0001) and LI (P<0.0001). Concordance for each patient between Dukes stage and outcome was 73.1 percent and between LI, calculated as a continuous variable, and outcome was 74.1 percent. If, on the other hand, Dukes stage and LI are used together, concordance with outcome reaches 89.2 percent. CONCLUSION: We can conclude that, from a practical point of view, LI is an essential factor that must be combined with pathologic variables for a better prediction of patient outcome.

Key words

Colorectal cancer DNA Ploidy Flow cytometry Cell proliferation Labeling index Prognostic factor 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dukes C. The classification of cancer of the rectum. J Pathol Bacteriol 1932;35:323–32.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen AM, Shank B, Friedman MA. Colorectal cancer. In: DeVita VT Jr, Hellmann S, Rosenberg SA, eds. Cancer: principles and practice of oncology. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott, 1989:895–964.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Friedlander ML, Hedley DW, Taylor IW. Clinical and biological significance of aneuploidy in human tumours. J Clin Pathol 1984;37:961–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hiddemann W, Von Bassewitz DB, Kleinemeier HJ,et al. DNA stemline heterogeneity in colorectal cancer. Cancer 1986;58:258–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koss GK, Greenebaum L. Measuring DNA in humam cancer. JAMA 1986;255:3158–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Quirke P, Dyson JE. Flow cytometry: methodology and applications in pathology. J Pathol 1986;149:79–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Armitage NC, Robias RA, Evans DF,et al. The influence of tumor cell DNA abnormalities on survival in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 1985;72:828–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Melamed MR, Enker WE, Banner P, Janov AJ, Kessler G, Darzynkiewicz Z. Flow citometry of colorectal carcinoma with three year follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum 1986;29:184–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frankfurt OS, Arbuck SG, Chin JL. Prognostic applications of DNA flow citometry for human solid tumors. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1986;87:276–290.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kokal W, Sheibani K, Terz J, Harada R. Tumor DNA content in the prognosis of colorectal carcinoma. JAMA 1986;255:3123–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goh HS, Jass JR, Atkin WS, Cuzick J, Northover JM. Value of flow cytometric determination of ploidy as a guide to prognosis in operable rectal cancer: a multivariate analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 1987;2:17–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Emdin SO, Stenlig R, Roos G. Prognostic value of DNA content in colorectal carcinoma: a flow citometric study with some methodologic aspects. Cancer 1987;60:1282–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grandjouan S. Cancers colo-rectaux a l'heure de la genetique moleculaire. Presse Med 1994;23:929–30.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gonzales Aguilera JJ, Fernandez-Peralta A, Vazquez R, Palicio M, Maillo C, Moreno Azcoita M. Genome instability in sporadic colorectal adenocarcinomas. Br J Surg 1994;81(Suppl 1):29.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wolley RC, Schreiber K, Koss LG,et al. DNA distribution In human colon carcinomas and its relationship to clinical behaviour. J Natl Cancer Inst 1982;69:15–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quirke P, Dixon MF, Clayden AD,et al. Prognostic significance of DNA aneuploidy and cell proliferation in rectal carcinoma. J Pathol 1987;151:285–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scott NA, Rainwater LM, Wieand HS,et al. The relative prognostic value of flow cytometric DNA analysis and conventional clinicopathologic criteria in patients with operable rectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 1987;30:513–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jones DJ, Moore M, Schofield PF. Refining the prognostic significance of DNA ploidy status in colorectal cancer: a prospective flow cytometric study. Int J Cancer 1988;41:206–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wiggers T, Arends JW, Schutte B, Volovics L, Bosnian FT. A multivariate analysis of pathologic prognostic indicators in large bowel cancer. Cancer 1988;61:386–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Halvorsen TB, Johanessen E. DNA ploidy, tumor site and prognosis in colorectal cancer. Scand J Gastroenterol 1990;25:141–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jass JR, Mukawa K, Goh HS, Love SB, Cappellaro D. Clinical importance of DNA content in rectal cancer measured by flow cytometry. J Clin Pathol 1989;42:254–259.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fisher ER, Sideritis RH, Sass R, Fisher B. Value of assessment of ploidy in rectal cancer. Int J Cancer 1990;45:597–603.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shackney SE, Smith CA, Miller BW,et al. Model for the genetic evolution of human solid tumors. Cancer Res 1898;49:3344–54.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tribukait B, Hammarberg C, Rubio C. Ploidy and proliferation patterns in colorectal adenocarcinomas related to Dukes' classification and to histopathological differentiation. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand [A] 1983;91:89–95.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morson BC, Sobin LH. Histological typing of intestinal tumors: international histological classification of tumors. Geneva: WHO, 1976:14.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Turnbull RB Jr, Kyle K, Watson FR, Spratt J. Cancer of the colon: the influence of the “no touch isolation” technique on survival rates. Ann Surg 1967;166:420–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Turnbull RB Jr. The no touch isolation technique of resection. JAMA 1975;231:1181–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Del Bino G, Silvestrini R, Zucconi MR,et al. DNA ploidy of human breast cancer. Ann Cell Pathol 1989;1:215–23.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Costa A, Faranda A, Scalman A,et al. Autoradiographic and flow cytometric assessment of cell proliferation in primary colorectal cancer: relationship to DNA ploidy and clinicopathological features. Int J Cancer 1992;50:719–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Agresti A. Analysis of ordinal categorical data. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1984.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cox DR. regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc B 1972;34:187–220.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Valone F, Friedman M, Wittlinger P,et al. Treatment of patients with advanced colorectal carcinomas with fluouracil alone, high-dose leucovorin plus fluouracil or segmental methotrexate, fluouracil and leucovorin: a randomized trial of the Northern California Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:1427–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    NIH consensus conference. Adjuvant therapy for patients with colon and rectal cancer. JAMA 1990;264: 1444–50.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Mac Donald JS,et al. Levamisole and fluorouracil for adjuvant therapy of resected colon carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1990;322:352–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krooke JE, Moertel CG, Gunderson LL,et al. Effective surgical adjuvant therapy for high risk rectal carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1991;324:709–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Mac Donald JS,et al. The intergroup study of fluorouracile plus levamisole and levamisole alone as adjuvant therapy for stage C colon cancer: a final report. Pro ASCO 1992;11:161–6.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Peracchia A, Sarli L, Carreras F, Pietra N, Longinotti E, Gafà M. Recidive locoregionali dopo chirurgia curativa per cancro del colon. Ann Ital Chir 1991;1:37–44.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Peracchia A, Sarli L, Pietra N, Carreras F, Longinotti E, Gafà M. Recidive pelviche dopo chirurgia curativa per cancro del retto. Ann Ital Chir 1991;2:151–7.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kirklin JW, Dockerty MB, Waugh JM. The role of peritoneal reflection in the prognosis of carcinoma of the rectum and sigmoid colon. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1949;88:326–31.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Astler WB, Coller FA. The prognostic significance of direct extension of carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Ann Surg 1954;139:846–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Manual for staging of cancer. Chicago: American Joint Committee for cancer staging and end-results reporting, 1978.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shein PS. Adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy following rectal surgery: an interim report from the Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group (GITSG). In: Jones SE, Salmon SE, eds. Adjuvant therapy of cancer III. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1981:547–58.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Newland RC, Chapuis PH, Pheils MT, MacPherson JC. The relationship of survival to staging and grading of colorectal carcinoma: a prospective study of 503 cases. Cancer 1981;47:1424–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Payne JE. International colorectal carcinoma staging and qradinq. Dis Colon Rectum 1989;32:282–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Blenkinsopp WK, Stewart-Brown S, Blesovsky L, Kearney G, Fielding LP. Histopathology reporting in large bowel cancer. J Clin Pathol 1981;4:509–13.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jass JR. Pathological staging: new methods and practical applications. Cancer Surv 1989;8:7–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shapiro HM. Flow cytometry of DNA content and other indicators of proliferative activity. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1989;113:591–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Moran MR, Rothenberger DA, Gallo RA, Goldberg SM, James EC. Multifactorial analysis of local recurrences in rectal cancer, including DNA ploidy studies: a predictive model. World J Surg 1993;17:801–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rognum TO, Thorud E, Lund E. Clinical behaviour in large bowel carcinoma patients with different DNA ploidy pattern [abstract], Budapest: Atti XIV International Cancer Congress, 1986;2439.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sasaki K, Hashimoto T, Kawachino K, Takahashi M. Intratumoral regional differences in DNA ploidy of gastrointestinal carcinomas. Cancer 1988;62:2569–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Deschner EE, Maskens AP. Significance of the labeling index and labeling distribution as kinetic parameters in colorectal mucosa of cancer patients and DMH treated animals. Cancer 1982;50:1136–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Silvestrini R, Daidone MG, Valagussa P, Di Fronzo G, Mezzanotte G, Bonadonna G. Cell kinetics as a prognostic indicator in node-negative breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1989;25:1165–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Seckinger D, Sugarbaker E, Frankfurt O. DNA content in human cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1980;113; 619–26.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Deschner EE, Lipkin M, Solomon C. Study of human rectal epithelial cellsin vitro. II.3H-Thymidine incorporation into polyps and adjacent mucosa. J Natl Cancer Inst 1966;36:849–55.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bleiberg H, Mainguet P, Galnd P. Cell renewal in familiar polyposis: comparison between polyps and adjacent healthy mucosa. Gastroenterology 1972;63:240–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lipkin M, Blattner WE, Fraumeni JF, Lynch HT, Deschner EE, Winawer S. Tritiated thymidine labeling distribution as a marker for hereditary predisposition to colon cancer. Cancer Res 1983;43:1899–1904.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kanemitsu T, Koike A, Yamamoto S. Study of the cell proliferation kinetics in ulcerative colitis, adenomatous polyps and cancer. Cancer 1985;56:1094–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lipkin M, Newmark MS. Effect of added dietary calcium on colonic epithelial cell proliferation in subjects at high risk for familial colonic cancer. N Engl J Med 1985;33:14381–4.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bleiberg H, Buyse M, Galnd P. Cell kinetic indicators of premalignant stages of colorectal cancer. Cancer 1985;56:124–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Silvestrini R, Faranda A, Costa A. DNA ploidy and cell kinetics in human colorectal carcinomas. J Surg Oncol 1991;2:4–8.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Silvestrini R, Costa A, Gennari L, Doci R, Bombardieri E, Bombelli L Cell kinetics of hepatic metastases as prognostic marker in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. HPB Surg 1990;2:135–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Higgins GA, Lee CE, Dwight RW, Keehn RJ. The case for adjuvant 5FU in colorectal cancer. Cancer Clin Trails 1978;1:35–9.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Grace TB, Moss SE. Adjuvant chemotherapy in cancer of the colon and rectum: demonstration of effectiveness of prolonged 5-FU chemotherapy in a prospective controlled randomized trial. Surg Clin North Am 1981;61:1321–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Habib NA, Peck MA, Sawyer CN, Blaxland JW, Luck RJ. An analysis of the outcome of 301 malignant colorectal tumors. Dis Colon Rectum 1983;26:601–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola Pietra
    • 1
  • Leopoldo Sarli
    • 1
  • Giuliano Sansebastiano
    • 2
  • Gloria Saccani Jotti
    • 3
  • Anacleto Peracchia
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of General SurgeryUniversity of Parma, School of MedicineParmaItaly
  2. 2.Institute of HygieneUniversity of Parma, School of MedicineParmaItaly
  3. 3.Institute of PathologyUniversity of Parma, School of MedicineParmaItaly

Personalised recommendations