ArticleThe journal of pathology. Clinical research2025
A quantitative tumor-wide analysis of morphological heterogeneity of colorectal adenocarcinoma.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and pathological characteristics of mucinous adenocarcinoma in colon cancer: comparison with classic adenocarcinoma.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Prognostic and therapeutic value of a 23-gene risk score tailored to the molecular characteristics of mucinous colorectal cancer.British journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Search for Mutations Connected With Non-Response to Anti-EGFR Therapy in mCRC in the Morphologically Defined Regions of Primary Tumours.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The intertumoral and intratumoral heterogeneity of colorectal adenocarcinoma (CRC) at the morphologic level is poorly understood. Previously, we identified morphological patterns associated with CRC molecular subtypes and their distinct molecular motifs. Here we aimed to evaluate the heterogeneity of these patterns across CRC. Three pathologists evaluated dominant, secondary, and tertiary morphology on four sections from four different FFPE blocks per tumor in a pilot set of 22 CRCs. An AI-based image analysis tool was trained on these tumors to evaluate the morphologic heterogeneity on an extended set of 161 stage I-IV primary CRCs (n = 644 H&E sections). We found that most tumors had two or three different dominant morphotypes and the complex tubular (CT) morphotype was the most common. The CT morphotype showed no combinatorial preferences. Desmoplastic (DE) morphotype was rarely dominant and rarely combined with other dominant morphotypes. Mucinous (MU) morphotype was mostly combined with solid/trabecular (TB) and papillary (PP) morphotypes. Most tumors showed medium or high heterogeneity, but no associations were found between heterogeneity and clinical parameters. A higher proportion of DE morphotype was associated with higher T-stage, N-stage, distant metastases, AJCC stage, and shorter overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). A higher proportion of MU morphotype was associated with higher grade, right side, and microsatellite instability (MSI). PP morphotype was associated with earlier T- and N-stage, absence of metastases, and improved OS and RFS. CT was linked to left side, lower grade, and better survival in stage I-III patients. MSI tumors showed higher proportions of MU and TB, and lower CT and PP morphotypes. These findings suggest that morphological shifts accompany tumor progression and highlight the need for extensive sampling and AI-based analysis. In conclusion, we observed unexpectedly high intratumoral morphological heterogeneity of CRC and found that it is not heterogeneity per se, but the proportions of morphologies that are associated with clinical outcomes.
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.