Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The prognostic value of tumor budding in patients who had surgery for rectal cancer with and without neoadjuvant therapy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of tumor budding (TB) in rectal cancer patients. TB in the specimens of patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was specifically analyzed.

Methods

This study was conducted on rectal cancer patients treated at Dokuz Eylul University Hospital, Turkey, between January 2000 and June 2010. Prospectively recorded clinicopathological data and the oncological outcomes of patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) (n = 117) and also patients who did not receive it (n = 113) were analyzed. TB was defined as an isolated single cancer cell or a cluster of cells composed of less than 5 cells of a “budding focus”. Budding intensity was scored as follows: none (0), mild (1–5 buds), moderate (6–10 buds), and severe (> 10 buds). Two tumor budding intesity groups were created, TB-1 (none, few) and TB-2 (moderate, severe) for statistical analysis.

Results

The median follow-up time was 40.12 ± 27.5 months. The 5-year overall and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 66% and 62%, respectively. Multivariate analysis of overall survival in all patients showed that TB intensity (HR 2.64; 95% CI 1.46–4.77) and radial margin status (HR 2.16; 95% CI 1.18–3.96) were independent predictors of decreased overall survival. In patients who received CRT, TB (HR 4.87; 95% CI 2.10–11.28) and distant metastasis (HR 4.31; 95% CI 1.81–10.22) were predictive of survival while in patients who did not receive CRT, TB (HR 4.28; 95% CI 1.60–11.49), distant metastasis (HR 2.33; 95% CI 1.19–4.60), radial margin status (HR 2.53; 95% CI 1.09–5.91), and venous invasion (HR 4.48; 95% CI 2.14–9.39) were significantly independent predictors of survival. In multivariate analysis of all patients decreased DFS was correlated with lymph node involvement (HR 2.78; 95% CI 1.60–4.87), venous invasion (HR 1.76; 95% CI 1.00–3.09), and with radial margin status (HR 2.31; 95% CI 1.27–4.22). In multivariate analysis in the CRT group, decreased DFS was significantly associated with lymph node involvement (HR 4.39; 95% CI 1.70–11.33) and radial margin status (HR 2.56; 95% CI 1.12–5.90) while only lymph node involvement (HR 2.33; 95% CI 1.16–4.66) was a significant predictor of decreased DFS in patients who did not receive CRT.

Conclusions

TB has prognostic value as important as lymph node involvement and radial margin status and it may be a helpful prognostic indicator even after CRT. TB should be included in the TNM classification and may be used in planning adjuvant therapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dukes CE (1932) The classification of cancer of the rectum. J Pathol Bacteriol 35:323–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Astler VB, Coller FA (1954) The prognostic significance of direct extension of carcinoma of colon and rectum. Ann Surg 139(6):846–852

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Edge SB, Compton CC (2010) The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 17(6):1471–1474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Park KJ, Choi HJ, Roh MS, Kwon HC, Kim C (2005) Intensity of tumor budding and its prognostic implications in invasive colon carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 48(8):1597–1602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Morodomi T, Isomoto H, Shirouzu K, Kakegawa K, Irie K, Morimatsu M (1989) An index for estimating the probability of lymph node metastasis in rectal cancers. Lymph node metastasis and the histopathology of actively invasive regions of cancer. Cancer 63(3):539–543

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hase K, Shatney C, Johnson D, Trollope M, Vierra M (1993) Prognostic value of tumor “budding” in patients with colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 36(7):627–635

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Okuyama T, Oya M, Ishikawa H (2003) Budding as a useful prognostic marker in pT3 well or moderately-differentiated rectal adenocarcinoma. J Surg Oncol 83(1):42–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Masaki T, Sugiyama M, Matsuoka H, Abe N, Izumisato Y, Goto A et al (2003) Clinical utility of grading criteria for submucosal invasion in the prognosis of T1 colorectal carcinomas. J Gastroenterol 38(1):37–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ueno H, Murphy J, Jass JR, Mochizuki H, Talbot IC et al (2002) Tumour ‘budding’ as an index to estimate the potential of aggressiveness in rectal cancer. Histopathology 40(2):127–132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Okuyama T, Oya M, Yamaguchi M (2002) Budding (sprouting) as a useful prognostic marker in colorectal mucinous carcinoma. Jpn J Clin Oncol 32(10):412–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jass JR, Barker M, Fraser L, Walsh MD, Whitehall VL, Gabrielli B et al (2003) APC mutation and tumour budding in colorectal cancer. J Clin Pathol 56(1):69–73

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Masaki T, Goto A, Sugiyama M, Matsuoka H, Abe N, Sakamoto A et al (2001) Possible contribution of CD44 variant 6 and nuclear beta-catenin expression to the formation of budding tumor cells in patients with T1 colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 15;92(10):2539–2546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD (1982) The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery-the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg 69(10):613–616

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Minsky BD, Mies C, Rich TA, Recht A (1989) Lymphatic vessel invasion is an independent prognostic factor for survival in colorectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 17(2):311–318

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Choi HJ, Park KJ, Shin JS, Roh MS, Kwon HC, Lee HS (2007) Tumor budding as a prognostic marker in stage-III rectal carcinoma. Int J Colorectal Dis 22(8):863–868

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Masaki T, Matsuoka H, Sugiyama M, Abe N, Sakamoto A, Watanabe T (2005) Tumor budding and evidence-based treatment of T2 rectal carcinomas. J Surg Oncol 92(1):59–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Masaki T, Matsuoka H, Sugiyama M, Abe N, Mori T, Atomi Y et al (2003) Budding as a useful determinant of the optimal treatment for T1 rectal carcinomas. Hepatogastroenterology 50(50):388–391

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kinoshita H, Watanabe T, Yanagisawa A, Hagawa H, Kato Y, Muto T (2004) Pathological changes of advanced lower-rectal cancer by preoperative radiotherapy. Hepatogastroenterology 51(59):1362–1366

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang LM, Kevans D, Mulcahy H, O’Sullivan J, Fennelly D, Hyland J et al (2009) Tumor budding is a strong and reproducible prognostic marker in T3N0 colorectal cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 33(1):134–141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wiggers T, Arends JW, Volovics A (1988) Regression analysis of prognostic factors in colorectal cancer after curative resections. Dis Colon Rectum 31(1):33–41

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Prall F (2007) Tumour budding in colorectal carcinoma. Histopathology 50(1):151–162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Compton CC, Fielding LP, Burgart LJ, Conley B, Cooper HS, Hamilton SR et al (2000) Prognostic factors in colorectal cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124(7):979–994

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tang PA, Bentzen SM, Chen EX, Siu LL (2007) Surrogate end points for median overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer:literature-based analysis from 39 randomized controlled trials of first-line chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 25(29):4562–4568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Baxter NN, Ricciardi R, Simunovic M, Urbach DR, Virnig BA (2010 Jan) An evaluation of the relationship between lymph node number and staging in pT3 colon cancer using population-based data. Dis Colon Rectum 53(1):65–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P (2008) What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol 26(2):303–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gosens MJ, Klaassen RA, Tan-Go I, Rutten HJ, Martijn H, van den Brule AJ et al (2007) Circumferential margin involvement is the crucial prognostic factor after multimodality treatment in patients with locally advanced rectal carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 13(22 Pt 1):6617–6623

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Birbeck KF, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, Parsons W, Dixon MF, Mapston NP et al (2002) Rates of circumferential resection margin involvement vary between surgeons and predict outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 235(4):449–457

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Develi State Hospital, 38400, Kayseri, Turkey

    A. H. Şirin, S. Sökmen, S. M. Ünlü, H. Ellidokuz & S. Sarioğlu

Authors
  1. A. H. Şirin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Sökmen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. M. Ünlü
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. Ellidokuz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Sarioğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. H. Şirin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by instutional ethical comittee.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Şirin, A.H., Sökmen, S., Ünlü, S.M. et al. The prognostic value of tumor budding in patients who had surgery for rectal cancer with and without neoadjuvant therapy. Tech Coloproctol 23, 333–342 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-01959-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-01959-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation