Search

Advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) consensus molecular subtype 4 (CMS4) or CRC with a low immunoscore is associated with shorter survival times. Non-metastatic CRC with microsatellite instability (MSI) is associated with a lower risk of recurrence. We evaluated outcome (lymph node metastases [LNM] or cancer recurrence) in these tumor subtypes in patients with surgically-removed non-pedunculated T1 CRC by performing a multicenter case-cohort study. We included all patients in 13 hospitals in the Netherlands from 2000-2014 (n = 651). We randomly selected a subgroup of patients (n = 223) and all patients with LNM or recurrence (n = 63), and median follow-up of 44 months. We centrally reviewed tumor-slides, and constructed and immunostained tissue microarrays determining MSI, CMS (MSI/CMS1, CMS2/3, or CMS4), and immunoscore (I-low/I-high). We used weighted Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate the association of MSI, CMS, and immunoscore with LNM or recurrence, adjusting for conventional histologic risk factors. In the randomly selected subgroup of patients, 7.1% of tumors were MSI/CMS1, 91.0% CMS2/3, 1.8% CMS4, and 25% I-low. In the case-cohort, patients with CMS4 tumors had an increased risk for LNM or recurrence compared with patients with tumors of other CMSs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.97; 95% CI, 1.12-14.06; P = 0.03). Albeit not significant, tumors with MSI had a lower risk for LNM or recurrence than other tumor subtypes (adjusted HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.12-2.30; P = 0.39), whereas tumors with a low immunoscore had an increased risk for LNM or recurrence (adjusted HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.68-2.48; P = 0.43). In conclusion, in a case-cohort study of patients with non-pedunculated T1 CRC, MSI, and immunoscore were not significantly associated with adverse outcome after surgery. CMS4 substantially increased the risk of adverse outcome. However, CMS4 is rare in T1 CRCs, limiting its value for determining the risk in patients.

T1 colorectal cancer can be mimicked by pseudo-invasion in pedunculated polyps. British guidelines are currently one of the few which recommend diagnostic confirmation of T1 colorectal cancer by a second pathologist. The aim of this study was to provide insights into the accuracy of histological diagnosis of pedunculated T1 colorectal cancer in daily clinical practice. A sample of 128 cases diagnosed as pedunculated T1 colorectal cancer between 2000 and 2014 from 10 Dutch hospitals was selected for histological review. Firstly, two Dutch expert gastrointestinal pathologists reviewed all hematoxylin-eosin stained slides. In 20 cases the diagnosis T1 colorectal cancer was not confirmed (20/128; 16%). The discordant cases were subsequently discussed with a third Dutch gastrointestinal pathologist and a consensus diagnosis was agreed. The revised diagnoses were pseudo-invasion in 10 cases (10/128; 8%), high-grade dysplasia in 4 cases (4/128; 3%), and equivocal in 6 cases (6/128; 5%). To further validate the consensus diagnosis, the discordant cases were reviewed by an independent expert pathologist from the United Kingdom. A total of 39 cases were reviewed blindly including the 20 cases with a revised diagnosis and 19 control cases where the Dutch expert panel agreed with the original reporting pathologists diagnosis. In 19 of the 20 cases with a revised diagnosis the British pathologist agreed that T1 colorectal cancer could not be confirmed. Additionally, amongst the 19 control cases the British pathologist was unable to confirm T1 colorectal cancer in a further 4 cases and was equivocal in 3 cases. In conclusion, both generalist and expert pathologists experience diagnostic difficulty distinguishing pseudo-invasion and high-grade dysplasia from T1 colorectal cancer. In order to prevent overtreatment, review of the histology of pedunculated T1 colorectal cancers by a second pathologist should be considered with discussion of these cases at a multidisciplinary meeting.