Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Role of RHAMM within the hierarchy of well-established prognostic factors in colorectal cancer
  1. Inti Zlobec (izlobec{at}uhbs.ch)
  1. Institute of Pathology, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland
    1. Luigi Terracciano (lterracciano{at}uhbs.ch)
    1. Institute of Pathology, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland
      1. Luigi Tornillo (ltornillo{at}uhbs.ch)
      1. Institute of Pathology, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland
        1. Ursula Günthert (ursula.guenthert{at}unibas.ch)
        1. Institute of Medical Microbiology and Institute of Pathology, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland
          1. Te Vuong (te.vuong{at}muhc.ca)
          1. Department of Radiation Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, Canada
            1. Jeremy R Jass (jeremy.jass{at}nwlh.nhs.uk)
            1. St. Mark's Hospital and Imperial College, United Kingdom
              1. Alessandro Lugli (alugli{at}uhbs.ch)
              1. Institute of Pathology, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland

                Abstract

                Objective: To compare the independent prognostic effect of a panel of immunohistochemical protein markers in colorectal cancer (CRC) and determine their ranking among the established prognostic factors T stage, N stage, vascular invasion, tumor budding and tumor grade.

                Design A tissue microarray of 1420 CRCs was immunostained for 23 markers and mismatch repair (MMR) proteins. Immunoreactivity was assessed semi-quantitatively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine cut-off scores for tumor marker positivity. Survival time was investigated for each marker in multivariable analysis with T stage, N stage, vascular invasion, tumor budding and tumor grade. The hazard ratio (HR) was used to compare the prognostic effect of each marker on 5-year survival.

                Results: To the standard prognostic features, only 6 markers added independent prognostic information including RHAMM (HR = 2.39 (1.88-3.05)), EGFR (HR = 1.65 (1.31-2.09)), tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (HR = 0.7 (0.54-0.92)), uPAR (HR = 1.38 (1.09-1.75)), RKIP (HR = 0.75 (0.58-0.96)) and MST1 (HR = 0.75 (0.58-0.95). Diffuse (>90% staining) expression of RHAMM ranked above T stage, vascular invasion, tumor budding and tumor grade in terms of adverse prognostic significance and was associated with distant metastasis (p = 0.012) and with worse outcome in patients with metastatic disease (p = 0.031).

                Conclusions: The strong adverse effect of RHAMM on outcome in addition to its position within the hierarchy of well-established prognostic factors suggest that RHAMM should be considered a more important prognosticator than tumor grade, tumor budding and vascular invasion in patients with CRC.

                Statistics from Altmetric.com

                Request permissions

                If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.