Search

CONTEXT: Tumor budding (TBud) is recognized as a poor prognostic marker in colorectal cancer (CRC) with important treatment implications in Stage II cancers and malignant polyps. There are multiple propositions for bud count reporting but without an uniformly accepted system. The International TBud consensus conference (ITBCC) proposed mandatory reporting of budding on the single worst ×20 high power field (0.785 mm2 area) with a 3-tier scoring system (low/intermediate/high for 0–4, 5–9, and ≥10 buds/×20 field). AIMS: Due to the lack of availability of ×20 objective, we aimed to validate a simple ×40 field count (0.236 mm2 area) for wider applicability. METHODS: Bud count was done on hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides of 92 archived cases of colon cancer on the worst ×20 and ×40 fields (0.95 mm2 and 0.236 mm2 area) (hotspot method). Count for 0.785 mm2 area was calculated using ITBCC normalization factor of 1.2. Interobserver variability between two observers was assessed. Score groups for ×20 field and proposed score groups for 40× field (low/intermediate/high for 0–1, 2–4 and ≥5 buds) were compared with disease-free survival. RESULTS: High bud score was seen in 20.6% and 31.5% cases, respectively, using the ×20 and ×40 methods. High interobserver concordance was noted (ICC 0.95). Both the ITBCC bud score and our proposed 40× scoring correlated significantly with prognosis (P = 0.030, log-rank test). CONCLUSIONS: In centers lacking 20× objective, we propose using the worst 40× hotspot method for reporting of budding for all CRCs as a simple, reproducible and prognostically significant scoring system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] more...

Context: Tumor budding (TBud) is recognized as a poor prognostic marker in colorectal cancer (CRC) with important treatment implications in Stage II cancers and malignant polyps. There are multiple propositions for bud count reporting but without an uniformly accepted system. The International TBud consensus conference (ITBCC) proposed mandatory reporting of budding on the single worst ×20 high power field (0.785 mm2 area) with a 3-tier scoring system (low/intermediate/high for 0-4, 5-9, and ≥10 buds/×20 field).Aims: Due to the lack of availability of ×20 objective, we aimed to validate a simple ×40 field count (0.236 mm2 area) for wider applicability.Methods: Bud count was done on hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides of 92 archived cases of colon cancer on the worst ×20 and ×40 fields (0.95 mm2 and 0.236 mm2 area) (hotspot method). Count for 0.785 mm2 area was calculated using ITBCC normalization factor of 1.2. Interobserver variability between two observers was assessed. Score groups for ×20 field and proposed score groups for 40× field (low/intermediate/high for 0-1, 2-4 and ≥5 buds) were compared with disease-free survival.Results: High bud score was seen in 20.6% and 31.5% cases, respectively, using the ×20 and ×40 methods. High interobserver concordance was noted (ICC 0.95). Both the ITBCC bud score and our proposed 40× scoring correlated significantly with prognosis (P = 0.030, log-rank test).Conclusions: : In centers lacking 20× objective, we propose using the worst 40× hotspot method for reporting of budding for all CRCs as a simple, reproducible and prognostically significant scoring system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] more...

Purpose: Tumour budding (TB) is an important adverse prognostic factor in colon cancer, which can also guide adjuvant treatment in stage II colorectal carcinoma. The International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) recommended a three-tiered scoring system to streamline the scoring of budding across the globe. The goal of this survey is to understand the variation in reporting practice, globally. Methods: A short survey was designed as an online questionnaire and shared via social media platforms and emails to pathology society groups in various countries. Results: A majority of the 294 respondents (186/294; 63.3%) report budding in colorectal carcinoma. This figure differed significantly from 53.4% in Asia to 97.4% in North America. The most common (56.4%) reason for not reporting TB was because it is yet not a mandatory recommendation in the various datasets (e.g. The College of American Pathologists). The majority (78.9%) of the people who were reporting TB, used the ITBCC scoring system (scoring on a single hotspot 20× field). Most used 10× objective for screening (88.7%) and scored only at the invasive front (88.7%). Immunohistochemistry (8.6%) or deeper cuts (24.2%) were rarely used. TB scoring took 10 minutes or less in most (87.1%). Conclusion: Though budding is well accepted among specialist gastrointestinal pathologists, it is still not universally accepted as an important prognostic parameter across the globe. The hesitancy for reporting is due to a combination of lack of clinical demand and extra effort and time involved in counting the ITBCC score. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] more...