Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26769140›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2016

Mismatch repair deficiency as a prognostic factor in mucinous colorectal cancer.

Juliana Andrici, Mahtab Farzin, Loretta Sioson, Adele Clarkson, Nicole Watson, Christopher W Toon, Anthony J Gill

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Role of microRNA in colorectal carcinoma (CRC): a narrative review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024
    Review
  7. Preoperative contrast-enhanced CT imaging and clinicopathological characteristics analysis of mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Juliana AndriciCancer Diagnosis and Pathology Research Group, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Mahtab FarzinCancer Diagnosis and Pathology Research Group, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Loretta SiosonCancer Diagnosis and Pathology Research Group, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Adele ClarksonCancer Diagnosis and Pathology Research Group, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Nicole WatsonCancer Diagnosis and Pathology Research Group, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Christopher W ToonCancer Diagnosis and Pathology Research Group, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Anthony J GillCancer Diagnosis and Pathology Research Group, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is some uncertainty about pathological grading of mucinous colorectal adenocarcinoma, defined as colorectal cancer demonstrating at least 50% mucinous differentiation. Under the WHO 2000 classification mucinous colorectal cancer was considered high grade. However under the current WHO 2010 classification microsatellite unstable/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI/MMRd) mucinous colorectal cancer is considered low grade, whereas microsatellite stable/mismatch repair proficient (MSS/MMRp) tumours are high grade. However there is little empirical evidence for this approach. We therefore compared the long term survival of patients with MSI/MMRd vs MSS/MMRp mucinous colorectal cancer in a large unselected cohort of patients undergoing surgery at our institution from 1998 to 2011. There were 2608 patients in the cohort, of which 264 (10.1%) were mucinous. 95 (36%) of the mucinous tumours were microsatellite unstable. The all-cause 5-year survival of mucinous MSI/MMRd colorectal cancer was similar to that of non-mucinous low-grade colorectal cancer (73 vs 67%, P=0.368), and significantly better than that of both non-mucinous high-grade (73 vs 53%, P<0.001) and mucinous MSS/MMRp colorectal cancer (73 vs 57%, P=0.023). The 5-year survival of mucinous MSS/MMRp colorectal cancer was slightly better than that of non-mucinous high-grade patients (57 vs 53%, P=0.027), but significantly worse than that of non-mucinous low-grade colorectal cancer (57 vs 67%, P=0.018). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, conventional histological grade based on glandular differentiation maintained prognostic significance (P=0.003) whereas MSI/MMRd status just failed to be statistically significant (P=0.062). Our findings support the WHO 2010 approach that as a group mucinous MSS/MMRp colorectal cancers are biologically aggressive. However, grading based exclusively on MSI/MMR status may be overly simplistic as conventional grading based on the degree of glandular differentiation still holds greater prognostic significance in multivariate analysis.

Indexed as

Adenocarcinoma, MucinousAgedColorectal NeoplasmsDNA Repair-Deficiency DisordersFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMicrosatellite InstabilityMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective StudiesTissue Array Analysis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.