ArticleThe journal of pathology. Clinical research2025
Investigation of three alternative histopathological scoring methods at the invasive tumour front in colorectal cancer.
Article in The journal of pathology. Clinical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison and analysis of the immune landscape at the tumour invasion front in patients with pMMR/MSI-H and pMMR/MSS colorectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although the characteristics at the invasive tumour front in colorectal cancer (CRC) are simple to assess, they are not included in routine pathology reports because they lack reproducibility and standardisation. In this study, we aimed to validate alternative scoring methods at the invasive tumour front in a large cohort of stage I-III CRC. The retrospective analysis was performed on haematoxylin and eosin-stained sections from 538 patients. At the invasive tumour front, tumour characteristics were scored using three alternative methods: the Karamitopoulou method, which evaluates the percentage of infiltrative tumour; the Taskin method, a five-point grading scale; and the tumour growth pattern (TGP) method, which classifies patterns as pushing, intermediate, or infiltrative. For interobserver assessment, the Karamitopoulou and TGP methods showed good agreement while the Taskin method presented fair agreement. High scores with the Karamitopoulou and Taskin methods correlated significantly with adverse prognostic factors, particularly advanced T stage (p < 0.001), N stage (p < 0.001), and the presence of peritoneal involvement (p < 0.001). The survival rate of the TGP method demonstrated that patients with an infiltrative growth pattern had significantly worse CRC survival compared to those with pushing and intermediate growth patterns (p < 0.001) and the TGP method retained its independence as a prognostic factor in multivariable Cox regression analysis only for colon cancer-specific survival (p < 0.001). The TGP scoring method is an independent prognostic factor only for colon cancer with simple and inexpensive assessment, underlining its practicality in routine reporting. Additionally, this method could be included as an additional histopathological risk indicator with the potential to guide therapeutic decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.