Cargando…
The Prognostic Impact of Histology in Esophageal and Esophago-Gastric Junction Adenocarcinoma
SIMPLE SUMMARY: Esophageal and esophago-gastric junction adenocarcinomas (EA/EGJAs) are a heterogeneous group of cancers. Stage is the most important prognostic factor, while morphology, determined by histologic analysis, has up until now played a minor role. Even new molecular classifications (whic...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8533974/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34680360 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13205211 |
_version_ | 1784587443194822656 |
---|---|
author | Fiocca, Roberto Mastracci, Luca Lugaresi, Marialuisa Grillo, Federica D’Errico, Antonietta Malvi, Deborah Spaggiari, Paola Tomezzoli, Anna Albarello, Luca Ristimäki, Ari Bottiglieri, Luca Bonora, Elena Krishnadath, Kausilia K. Raulli, Gian Domenico Rosati, Riccardo Fumagalli Romario, Uberto De Manzoni, Giovanni Räsänen, Jari Mattioli, Sandro |
author_facet | Fiocca, Roberto Mastracci, Luca Lugaresi, Marialuisa Grillo, Federica D’Errico, Antonietta Malvi, Deborah Spaggiari, Paola Tomezzoli, Anna Albarello, Luca Ristimäki, Ari Bottiglieri, Luca Bonora, Elena Krishnadath, Kausilia K. Raulli, Gian Domenico Rosati, Riccardo Fumagalli Romario, Uberto De Manzoni, Giovanni Räsänen, Jari Mattioli, Sandro |
author_sort | Fiocca, Roberto |
collection | PubMed |
description | SIMPLE SUMMARY: Esophageal and esophago-gastric junction adenocarcinomas (EA/EGJAs) are a heterogeneous group of cancers. Stage is the most important prognostic factor, while morphology, determined by histologic analysis, has up until now played a minor role. Even new molecular classifications (which should be based on accurate histologic assessment) are a long way off from being used in day to day practice. The reassessment of nearly 300 EA/EGJAs enabled us to re-evaluate morphology and identify a two-tiered grading approach in glandular adenocarcinomas (80%) based on a cut off of 6% of poorly differentiated components (well differentiated versus poorly differentiated). Furthermore, rare, but prognostically significant, variants were recognized with an in-depth morphologic description. On this basis, two morphologic risk groups (lower risk and higher risk) were identified, adding significant prognostic value to the stage. The accurate morphologic description of EA/EGJAs must be a prerequisite for a better understanding of prognosis, molecular events, and response to treatment. ABSTRACT: Stage significantly affects survival of esophageal and esophago-gastric junction adenocarcinomas (EA/EGJAs), however, limited evidence for the prognostic role of histologic subtypes is available. The aim of the study was to describe a morphologic approach to EA/EGJAs and assess its discriminating prognostic power. Histologic slides from 299 neoadjuvant treatment-naïve EA/EGJAs, resected in five European Centers, were retrospectively reviewed. Morphologic features were re-assessed and correlated with survival. In glandular adenocarcinomas (240/299 cases—80%), WHO grade and tumors with a poorly differentiated component ≥6% were the most discriminant factors for survival (both p < 0.0001), distinguishing glandular well-differentiated from poorly differentiated adenocarcinomas. Two prognostically different histologic groups were identified: the lower risk group, comprising glandular well-differentiated (34.4%) and rare variants, such as mucinous muconodular carcinoma (2.7%) and diffuse desmoplastic carcinoma (1.7%), versus the higher risk group, comprising the glandular poorly differentiated subtype (45.8%), including invasive mucinous carcinoma (5.7%), diffuse anaplastic carcinoma (3%), mixed carcinoma (6.7%) (CSS p < 0.0001, DFS p = 0.001). Stage (p < 0.0001), histologic groups (p = 0.001), age >72 years (p = 0.008), and vascular invasion (p = 0.015) were prognostically significant in the multivariate analysis. The combined evaluation of stage/histologic group identified 5-year cancer-specific survival ranging from 87.6% (stage II, lower risk) to 14% (stage IVA, higher risk). Detailed characterization of histologic subtypes contributes to EA/EGJA prognostic prediction. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8533974 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85339742021-10-23 The Prognostic Impact of Histology in Esophageal and Esophago-Gastric Junction Adenocarcinoma Fiocca, Roberto Mastracci, Luca Lugaresi, Marialuisa Grillo, Federica D’Errico, Antonietta Malvi, Deborah Spaggiari, Paola Tomezzoli, Anna Albarello, Luca Ristimäki, Ari Bottiglieri, Luca Bonora, Elena Krishnadath, Kausilia K. Raulli, Gian Domenico Rosati, Riccardo Fumagalli Romario, Uberto De Manzoni, Giovanni Räsänen, Jari Mattioli, Sandro Cancers (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: Esophageal and esophago-gastric junction adenocarcinomas (EA/EGJAs) are a heterogeneous group of cancers. Stage is the most important prognostic factor, while morphology, determined by histologic analysis, has up until now played a minor role. Even new molecular classifications (which should be based on accurate histologic assessment) are a long way off from being used in day to day practice. The reassessment of nearly 300 EA/EGJAs enabled us to re-evaluate morphology and identify a two-tiered grading approach in glandular adenocarcinomas (80%) based on a cut off of 6% of poorly differentiated components (well differentiated versus poorly differentiated). Furthermore, rare, but prognostically significant, variants were recognized with an in-depth morphologic description. On this basis, two morphologic risk groups (lower risk and higher risk) were identified, adding significant prognostic value to the stage. The accurate morphologic description of EA/EGJAs must be a prerequisite for a better understanding of prognosis, molecular events, and response to treatment. ABSTRACT: Stage significantly affects survival of esophageal and esophago-gastric junction adenocarcinomas (EA/EGJAs), however, limited evidence for the prognostic role of histologic subtypes is available. The aim of the study was to describe a morphologic approach to EA/EGJAs and assess its discriminating prognostic power. Histologic slides from 299 neoadjuvant treatment-naïve EA/EGJAs, resected in five European Centers, were retrospectively reviewed. Morphologic features were re-assessed and correlated with survival. In glandular adenocarcinomas (240/299 cases—80%), WHO grade and tumors with a poorly differentiated component ≥6% were the most discriminant factors for survival (both p < 0.0001), distinguishing glandular well-differentiated from poorly differentiated adenocarcinomas. Two prognostically different histologic groups were identified: the lower risk group, comprising glandular well-differentiated (34.4%) and rare variants, such as mucinous muconodular carcinoma (2.7%) and diffuse desmoplastic carcinoma (1.7%), versus the higher risk group, comprising the glandular poorly differentiated subtype (45.8%), including invasive mucinous carcinoma (5.7%), diffuse anaplastic carcinoma (3%), mixed carcinoma (6.7%) (CSS p < 0.0001, DFS p = 0.001). Stage (p < 0.0001), histologic groups (p = 0.001), age >72 years (p = 0.008), and vascular invasion (p = 0.015) were prognostically significant in the multivariate analysis. The combined evaluation of stage/histologic group identified 5-year cancer-specific survival ranging from 87.6% (stage II, lower risk) to 14% (stage IVA, higher risk). Detailed characterization of histologic subtypes contributes to EA/EGJA prognostic prediction. MDPI 2021-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8533974/ /pubmed/34680360 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13205211 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Fiocca, Roberto Mastracci, Luca Lugaresi, Marialuisa Grillo, Federica D’Errico, Antonietta Malvi, Deborah Spaggiari, Paola Tomezzoli, Anna Albarello, Luca Ristimäki, Ari Bottiglieri, Luca Bonora, Elena Krishnadath, Kausilia K. Raulli, Gian Domenico Rosati, Riccardo Fumagalli Romario, Uberto De Manzoni, Giovanni Räsänen, Jari Mattioli, Sandro The Prognostic Impact of Histology in Esophageal and Esophago-Gastric Junction Adenocarcinoma |
title | The Prognostic Impact of Histology in Esophageal and Esophago-Gastric Junction Adenocarcinoma |
title_full | The Prognostic Impact of Histology in Esophageal and Esophago-Gastric Junction Adenocarcinoma |
title_fullStr | The Prognostic Impact of Histology in Esophageal and Esophago-Gastric Junction Adenocarcinoma |
title_full_unstemmed | The Prognostic Impact of Histology in Esophageal and Esophago-Gastric Junction Adenocarcinoma |
title_short | The Prognostic Impact of Histology in Esophageal and Esophago-Gastric Junction Adenocarcinoma |
title_sort | prognostic impact of histology in esophageal and esophago-gastric junction adenocarcinoma |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8533974/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34680360 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13205211 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fioccaroberto theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT mastracciluca theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT lugaresimarialuisa theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT grillofederica theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT derricoantonietta theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT malvideborah theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT spaggiaripaola theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT tomezzolianna theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT albarelloluca theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT ristimakiari theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT bottiglieriluca theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT bonoraelena theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT krishnadathkausiliak theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT raulligiandomenico theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT rosatiriccardo theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT fumagalliromariouberto theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT demanzonigiovanni theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT rasanenjari theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT mattiolisandro theprognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT fioccaroberto prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT mastracciluca prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT lugaresimarialuisa prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT grillofederica prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT derricoantonietta prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT malvideborah prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT spaggiaripaola prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT tomezzolianna prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT albarelloluca prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT ristimakiari prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT bottiglieriluca prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT bonoraelena prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT krishnadathkausiliak prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT raulligiandomenico prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT rosatiriccardo prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT fumagalliromariouberto prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT demanzonigiovanni prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT rasanenjari prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma AT mattiolisandro prognosticimpactofhistologyinesophagealandesophagogastricjunctionadenocarcinoma |