Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 1944–1953 | Cite as

Prognostic Significance and Molecular Associations of Tumor Growth Pattern in Colorectal Cancer

  • Teppei Morikawa
  • Aya Kuchiba
  • Zhi Rong Qian
  • Mari Mino-Kenudson
  • Jason L. Hornick
  • Mai Yamauchi
  • Yu Imamura
  • Xiaoyun Liao
  • Reiko Nishihara
  • Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt
  • Charles S. Fuchs
  • Shuji Ogino
Gastrointestinal Oncology

Abstract

Background

Infiltrative growth pattern at the tumor margin has been associated with shorter patient survival. However, little is known about the prognostic significance of tumor growth pattern, independent of tumoral molecular alterations and other histologic features.

Methods

Utilizing a database of 1139 colon and rectal cancer patients in two prospective cohort studies, histologic features including tumor growth pattern, tumor differentiation, lymphocytic reaction, mucinous component, and signet ring cell component were recorded by a single pathologist. Cox proportional hazard model was used to compute mortality hazard ratio, adjusting for clinical, pathologic, and tumor molecular features, including microsatellite instability, the CpG island methylator phenotype, long interspersed nucleotide element 1 (LINE-1) methylation, and KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations.

Results

Among 1139 colorectal cancers, we observed expansile growth pattern in 372 tumors (33%), intermediate growth pattern in 610 tumors (54%), and infiltrative growth pattern in 157 tumors (14%). Compared to patients with expansile growth pattern, those with infiltrative growth pattern experienced shorter cancer-specific survival (log rank P < 0.0001; multivariate hazard ratio 1.74; 95% confidence interval 1.22–2.47) and overall survival (log rank P < 0.0001; multivariate hazard ratio 1.78; 95% confidence interval 1.33–2.39). The prognostic association of infiltrative growth pattern was confined to patients with stage I–III disease (P interaction with stage = 0.0001).

Conclusions

Infiltrative growth pattern was associated with worse prognosis among stage I–III colorectal cancer patients, independent of other clinical, pathologic, and molecular characteristics.

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank the participants and staff of the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, for their valuable contributions as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY. This work was supported by U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) grants P01 CA87969 (to S. Hankinson), P01 CA55075 (to W. Willett), P50 CA127003 (to C.S.F.), and R01 CA151993 (to S.O.) and by grants from the Bennett Family Fund and the Entertainment Industry Foundation through National Colorectal Cancer Research Alliance. T.M. was supported by a fellowship grant from the Japan Society for Promotion of Science. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NCI or NIH. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Zlobec I, Lugli A. Invasive front of colorectal cancer: dynamic interface of pro-/anti-tumor factors. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:5898–906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jass JR, Atkin WS, Cuzick J, Bussey HJ, Morson BC, Northover JM, Todd IP. The grading of rectal cancer: historical perspectives and a multivariate analysis of 447 cases. Histopathology. 1986;10:437–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jass JR, Love SB, Northover JM. A new prognostic classification of rectal cancer. Lancet. 1987;1:1303–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Halvorsen TB, Seim E. Association between invasiveness, inflammatory reaction, desmoplasia and survival in colorectal cancer. J Clin Pathol. 1989;42:162–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shepherd NA, Saraga EP, Love SB, Jass JR. Prognostic factors in colonic cancer. Histopathology. 1989;14:613–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kubota Y, Petras RE, Easley KA, Bauer TW, Tubbs RR, Fazio VW. Ki-67-determined growth fraction versus standard staging and grading parameters in colorectal carcinoma. A multivariate analysis. Cancer. 1992;70:2602–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roncucci L, Fante R, Losi L, et al. Survival for colon and rectal cancer in a population-based cancer registry. Eur J Cancer. 1996;32A:295–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cianchi F, Messerini L, Palomba A, et al. Character of the invasive margin in colorectal cancer: does it improve prognostic information of Dukes staging? Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40:1170–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cianchi F, Messerini L, Comin CE, et al. Pathologic determinants of survival after resection of T3N0 (stage IIA) colorectal cancer: proposal for a new prognostic model. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50:1332–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zlobec I, Baker K, Minoo P, Hayashi S, Terracciano L, Lugli A. Tumor border configuration added to TNM staging better stratifies stage II colorectal cancer patients into prognostic subgroups. Cancer. 2009;115:4021–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galon J, Costes A, Sanchez-Cabo F, et al. Type, density, and location of immune cells within human colorectal tumors predict clinical outcome. Science. 2006;313:1960–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pages F, Kirilovsky A, Mlecnik B, et al. In situ cytotoxic and memory T cells predict outcome in patients with early-stage colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5944–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ogino S, Nosho K, Irahara N, et al. Lymphocytic reaction to colorectal cancer is associated with longer survival, independent of lymph node count, microsatellite instability, and CpG island methylator phenotype. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:6412–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nosho K, Baba Y, Tanaka N, et al. Tumour-infiltrating T-cell subsets, molecular changes in colorectal cancer, and prognosis: cohort study and literature review. J Pathol. 2010;222:350–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mlecnik B, Tosolini M, Kirilovsky A, et al. Histopathologic-based prognostic factors of colorectal cancers are associated with the state of the local immune reaction. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:610–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greenson JK, Bonner JD, Ben-Yzhak O, et al. Phenotype of microsatellite unstable colorectal carcinomas: well-differentiated and focally mucinous tumors and the absence of dirty necrosis correlate with microsatellite instability. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:563–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Colomer A, Erill N, Vidal A, et al. A novel logistic model based on clinicopathological features predicts microsatellite instability in colorectal carcinomas. Diagn Mol Pathol. 2005;14:213–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Halvarsson B, Anderson H, Domanska K, Lindmark G, Nilbert M. Clinicopathologic factors identify sporadic mismatch repair–defective colon cancers. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;129:238–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Greenson JK, Huang SC, Herron C, et al. Pathologic predictors of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33:126–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roman R, Verdu M, Calvo M, et al. Microsatellite instability of the colorectal carcinoma can be predicted in the conventional pathologic examination. A prospective multicentric study and the statistical analysis of 615 cases consolidate our previously proposed logistic regression model. Virchows Arch. 2010;456:533–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gryfe R, Kim H, Hsieh ET, et al. Tumor microsatellite instability and clinical outcome in young patients with colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:69–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Popat S, Hubner R, Houlston RS. Systematic review of microsatellite instability and colorectal cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:609–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boland CR, Goel A. Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:2073–87e3.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chan AT, Ogino S, Fuchs CS. Aspirin and the risk of colorectal cancer in relation to the expression of COX-2. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2131–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morikawa T, Kuchiba A, Yamauchi M, et al. Association of CTNNB1 (beta-catenin) alterations, body mass index, and physical activity with survival in patients with colorectal cancer. JAMA. 2011;305:1685–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ogino S, Kawasaki T, Brahmandam M, et al. Sensitive sequencing method for KRAS mutation detection by pyrosequencing. J Mol Diagn. 2005;7:413–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ogino S, Kawasaki T, Kirkner GJ, Loda M, Fuchs CS. CpG island methylator phenotype-low (CIMP-low) in colorectal cancer: possible associations with male sex and KRAS mutations. J Mol Diagn. 2006;8:582–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ogino S, Nosho K, Kirkner GJ, et al. PIK3CA mutation is associated with poor prognosis among patients with curatively resected colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1477–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ogino S, Nosho K, Kirkner GJ, et al. CpG island methylator phenotype, microsatellite instability, BRAF mutation and clinical outcome in colon cancer. Gut. 2009;58:90–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ogino S, Kawasaki T, Kirkner GJ, Kraft P, Loda M, Fuchs CS. Evaluation of markers for CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) in colorectal cancer by a large population-based sample. J Mol Diagn. 2007;9:305–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nosho K, Irahara N, Shima K, et al. Comprehensive biostatistical analysis of CpG island methylator phenotype in colorectal cancer using a large population-based sample. PLoS One. 2008;3:e3698.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weisenberger DJ, Siegmund KD, Campan M, et al. CpG island methylator phenotype underlies sporadic microsatellite instability and is tightly associated with BRAF mutation in colorectal cancer. Nat Genet. 2006;38:787–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ogino S, Kawasaki T, Nosho K, et al. LINE-1 hypomethylation is inversely associated with microsatellite instability and CpG island methylator phenotype in colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer. 2008;122:2767–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ogino S, Nosho K, Kirkner GJ, et al. A cohort study of tumoral LINE-1 hypomethylation and prognosis in colon cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1734–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Compton C, Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Pettigrew N, Fielding LP. American Joint Committee on Cancer Prognostic Factors Consensus Conference: Colorectal Working Group. Cancer. 2000;88:1739–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum. Japanese Classification of Colorectal Carcinoma. 2nd ed. Tokyo: Kanehara, 2009.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dundas SA, Laing RW, O’Cathain A, et al. Feasibility of new prognostic classification for rectal cancer. J Clin Pathol. 1988;41:1273–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chu D, Li Y, Wang W, et al. High level of Notch1 protein is associated with poor overall survival in colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1337–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Huh JW, Kim HR, Kim YJ. Prognostic value of perineural invasion in patients with stage II colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2066–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Muratore A, Ribero D, Zimmitti G, Mellano A, Langella S, Capussotti L. Resection margin and recurrence-free survival after liver resection of colorectal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1324–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kang H, Min BS, Lee KY, et al. Loss of E-cadherin and MUC2 expressions correlated with poor survival in patients with stages II and III colorectal carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:711–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Li D, Peng X, Yan D, et al. Msi-1 is a predictor of survival and a novel therapeutic target in colon cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:2074–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Samowitz WS, Albertsen H, Herrick J, et al. Evaluation of a large, population-based sample supports a CpG island methylator phenotype in colon cancer. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:837–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Samowitz WS, Sweeney C, Herrick J, et al. Poor survival associated with the BRAF V600E mutation in microsatellite-stable colon cancers. Cancer Res. 2005;65:6063–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Harrison JC, Dean PJ, el-Zeky F, Vander Zwaag R. From Dukes through Jass: pathological prognostic indicators in rectal cancer. Hum Pathol. 1994;25:498–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Farina-Sarasqueta A, van Lijnschoten G, Moerland E, et al. The BRAF V600E mutation is an independent prognostic factor for survival in stage II and stage III colon cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:2396–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yokota T, Ura T, Shibata N, et al. BRAF mutation is a powerful prognostic factor in advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:856–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ribic CM, Sargent DJ, Moore MJ, et al. Tumor microsatellite-instability status as a predictor of benefit from fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:247–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Di Nicolantonio F, Martini M, Molinari F, et al. Wild-type BRAF is required for response to panitumumab or cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5705–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sargent DJ, Marsoni S, Monges G, et al. Defective mismatch repair as a predictive marker for lack of efficacy of fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy in colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3219–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teppei Morikawa
    • 1
  • Aya Kuchiba
    • 1
  • Zhi Rong Qian
    • 1
  • Mari Mino-Kenudson
    • 2
  • Jason L. Hornick
    • 3
  • Mai Yamauchi
    • 1
  • Yu Imamura
    • 1
  • Xiaoyun Liao
    • 1
  • Reiko Nishihara
    • 1
  • Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt
    • 1
  • Charles S. Fuchs
    • 1
    • 4
  • Shuji Ogino
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Medical OncologyDana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PathologyMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of PathologyBrigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  4. 4.Channing Laboratory, Department of MedicineBrigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations