Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38613913›Full record

ArticleESMO open2024

Results from the UNITED study: a multicenter study validating the prognostic effect of the tumor-stroma ratio in colon cancer.

M Polack, M A Smit, G W van Pelt, A G H Roodvoets, E Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg, H Putter, H Gelderblom, A S L P Crobach, V Terpstra, G Petrushevska and 10 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Tumor-stroma ratio in colitis-associated colorectal cancer.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2025
    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

20 authors.

M PolackDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden.
M A SmitDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden.
G W van PeltDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden.
A G H RoodvoetsClinical Research Center, Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden.
E Meershoek-Klein KranenbargClinical Research Center, Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden.
H PutterDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden.
H GelderblomDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden.
A S L P CrobachDepartment of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden.
V TerpstraDepartment of Pathology, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands.
G PetrushevskaDepartment of Pathology, Medical Faculty of Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia.
G GašljevićDepartment of Pathology, Onkološki inštitut-Institute of Oncology, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
S Kjær-FrifeldtDepartment of Pathology, Vejle Sygehus-Sygehus Lillebælt, Vejle, Denmark.
E M V de CubaPATHAN Laboratories, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
N W J BulkmansDepartment of Pathology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem.
G R VinkDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht; Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
R Al DieriEuropean Society of Pathology, Brussels, Belgium.
R A E M TollenaarDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden.
J H J M van KriekenDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
W E MeskerDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden. Electronic address: w.e.mesker@lumc.nl.
UNITED Collaboration

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe TNM (tumor-node-metastasis) Evaluation Committee of Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) and College of American Pathologists (CAP) recommended to prospectively validate the cost-effective and robust tumor-stroma ratio (TSR) as an independent prognostic parameter, since high intratumor stromal percentages have previously predicted poor patient-related outcomes. PATIENTS AND

methodsThe 'Uniform Noting for International application of Tumor-stroma ratio as Easy Diagnostic tool' (UNITED) study enrolled patients in 27 participating centers in 12 countries worldwide. The TSR, categorized as stroma-high (>50%) or stroma-low (≤50%), was scored through standardized microscopic assessment by certified pathologists, and effect on disease-free survival (DFS) was evaluated with 3-year median follow-up. Secondary endpoints were benefit assessment of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) and overall survival (OS).

resultsA total of 1537 patients were included, with 1388 eligible stage II/III patients curatively operated between 2015 and 2021. DFS was significantly shorter in stroma-high (n = 428) than in stroma-low patients (n = 960) (3-year rates 70% versus 83%; P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, TSR remained an independent prognosticator for DFS (P < 0.001, hazard ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.17-1.90). As secondary outcome, DFS was also worse in stage II and III stroma-high patients despite adjuvant treatment (3-year rates stage II 73% versus 92% and stage III 66% versus 80%; P = 0.008 and P = 0.011, respectively). In stage II patients not receiving ACT (n = 322), the TSR outperformed the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) criteria in identifying patients at risk of events (event rate 21% versus 9%), with a higher discriminatory 3-year DFS rate (stroma-high 80% versus ASCO high risk 91%). A trend toward worse 5-year OS in stroma-high was noticeable (74% versus 83% stroma-low; P = 0.102).

conclusionThe multicenter UNITED study unequivocally validates the TSR as an independent prognosticator, confirming worse outcomes in stroma-high patients. The TSR improved current selection criteria for patients at risk of events, and stroma-high patients potentially experienced chemotherapy resistance. TSR implementation in pathology diagnostics and international guidelines is highly recommended as aid in personalized treatment.

Indexed as

Colonic NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChemotherapy, AdjuvantDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProspective StudiesStromal Cellscolon cancerdisease-free survivalpathologytumor microenvironmenttumor–stroma ratio

Identifiers

PMID38613913
PMCPMC11033069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.