Histopathological features have limited correlation with gene expression-based classifiers

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1874959/v1

Download PDF

Article

Histopathological features have limited correlation with gene expression-based classifiers

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1874959/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between four distinct histopathological features, (1) tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, (2) mucinous differentiation, (3) tumor-stroma ratio, (4) tumor budding and two gene expression-based classifiers, (1) consensus molecular subtypes (CMS), (2) colorectal cancer intrinsic subtypes (CRIS). All four histopathological features were retrospectively scored on hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections of the most invasive part of the primary tumor of 218 stage II and III colon cancer patients from two independent cohorts (AMC-AJCC-90 and AC-ICAM). RNA-based CMS and CRIS assignments were independently obtained for all patients. Contingency tables were constructed and χ2 test was used to test for statistical significance. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The presence of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and a mucinous phenotype (>50% mucinous surface area) were positively correlated with CMS1 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.008) and CRIS-A (p = 0.006 and p < 0.001). The presence of mucus (≥ 10%) was strongly associated with CMS3: mucus was present in 64.1% of all CMS3 tumors. Although a strong association between tumor-stroma ratio and CMS4 was established in this study (p = 0.006), still 32 out of 61 (52.5%) CMS4 tumors were scored as stroma-low, indicating that CMS4 tumors cannot be identified solely based on stromal content. Higher budding counts were seen in CMS4 and CRIS-B tumors (p = 0.045 and p = 0.046). No other associations of the measured parameters were seen for any of the other CRIS-subtypes. Our analysis revealed that histopathologic features have limited correlation with CMS and CRIS subtypes. Identification of distinct molecular subtypes using histopathology alone proved to be infeasible. Our findings also indicate that histopathologic features and molecular subtypes should be seen as distinct biomarkers. Combining both molecular and morphologic features could potentially improve patient stratification.

Colon cancer (CC) is a complex and heterogeneous disease with significant variation in therapy response and clinical outcome. The tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification, based on tumor extension and invasion, provides prognostic information, and is currently used in clinical decision-making (1). The backbone of treatment in patients with non-metastatic CC is surgical resection of the primary tumor. Adjuvant systemic chemotherapy is additionally applied in patients with high-risk stage II and stage III disease. Clinical outcome, however, still varies substantially between patients within the same TNM-stage. Additional biomarkers and classification systems have been proposed to further stratify CC patients and improve prognostication beyond the TNM-classification. These systems focus on different levels of tumor biology, including morphology of tumor cells and the tumor microenvironment, transcriptomic analysis, and microsatellite instability (MSI) status.

MSI-tumors represent approximately 15% of all CC patients and are characterized by high mutational rate and immune cell infiltration (2-4). MSI status is associated with favorable prognosis in early-stage disease, while worse prognosis is seen in metastatic CC as compared to microsatellite stable (MSS) CC (5-7). MSI status is at present the only biomarker used in clinical practice with predictive value for adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with MSI high-risk stage II CC should not be treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (3,4). Two methods are commonly used in screening for MSI status: 1) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of DNA mutation status for two to five microsatellite markers (8,9) and 2) immunohistochemical staining (IHC) for mismatch repair proteins (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2) (10). Both methods are highly sensitive and specific, and the two tests show high concordance (11,12).

Stratification of CC patients by MSI-status provides essential prognostic and predictive information, but does not reflect the full complexity of the tumor and its interactions with the tumor microenvironment (TME). The TME plays an important role in cancer initiation and progression. Fibroblasts and macrophages are key players within the tumor stroma and secrete a variety of active factors such as cytokines, chemokines and growth factors that can regulate tumor occurrence and development, and clinical outcome (13). The composition of the TME varies substantially between CC patients. A high level of immune cell infiltration is present in a subset of tumors, while others demonstrate a high amount of stromal cells within their TME (14).

These differences in TME composition can in part be captured by assessment of routine hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained tissue sections, which is relatively cheap and easy to implement in daily clinical practice. Two promising histopathological features are the presence and quantification of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and an estimation of the amount of stroma within the primary tumor. The importance of an intra-tumoral immune reaction as a prognostic marker is increasingly recognized and a recent meta-analysis in CC patients established the improved overall survival for high levels of TILs as compared to low levels (15-19). Tumors with a high amount of stroma (>50%) have an unfavorable prognosis compared to tumors with low stromal content (≤50%) and this observation has led to the development of the tumor-stroma ratio (TSR) as an indicator of clinical disease outcome (20-22).

Another morphologic characteristic of colon tumors is the absence or presence of extracellular mucus in the primary tumor. Mucinous adenocarcinomas, defined as tumors in which >50% of the lesion is composed of extracellular mucus, are considered a distinct histological subtype according to the World Health Organization (23). Mucinous adenocarcinomas are associated with worse outcome compared to non-mucinous adenocarcinomas (24-27).

An important biomarker reflecting on the invasive capacity of CC is the occurrence of tumor budding (TB). Tumor buds are defined as single cells or small clusters of up to four cells dissociated from the main tumor body (28). Tumor buds are characterized by an epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) phenotype and are considered to be an important step in cancer metastasis formation (29).

These distinct morphologic characteristics provide prognostic information and represent biological aspects of colon cancer (CC). In order to gain further insight into the exact underlying tumor biology, several research groups attempted to capture the entire tumor phenotype within gene expression profiles. These transcriptomic approaches aimed to gain further insight into the different aspects influencing tumor behavior. The CMS classifier, based on the entire tumor area (i.e., neoplastic cells as well as stromal cells) divides CC into four biologically distinct subtypes (30). CMS1 is characterized by microsatellite instability (MSI), hypermutation, and strong immune activation. The canonical subtype, CMS2, has marked WNT and MYC signaling activation. CMS3 shows evident metabolic deregulation and is enriched for KRAS-mutations. CMS4, the mesenchymal subtype, exhibits pronounced stromal invasion, angiogenesis and TGF-β activation. The clinical relevance of the intrinsic processes implicated in each CMS was confirmed by CMS-subtyping in a large heterogeneous patient cohort (n = 2,129), which revealed significant differences in prognosis, with CMS4 as the poor-prognosis subtype (30).

The CRIS classification followed a different approach and focusses on the epithelial tumor compartment. Transcriptional profiles of patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) were used to define five cancer epithelium specific subtypes (31). CRIS subtypes can be divided into two major subfamilies: CRIS-A/B and CRIS-C/D/E. CRIS-A and B are both associated with mucinous and inflammatory traits, but CRIS-B as opposed to CRIS-A also displays marked traits of EMT. CRIS-C, D and E are characterized by chromosomal instability (CIN). Elevated EGFR signaling is seen in CRIS-C, while CRIS-D features high WNT activity. Lastly, CRIS-E features a Paneth cell-like phenotype.

Certain prominent genotypic features of the molecular subtypes, like an EMT phenotype in CMS4 tumors, are reminiscent of distinctive morphologic tumor traits, like high stromal content. In this study, we assessed the association between four distinct histopathological features (TILs, mucinous differentiation, TSR and TB) and two gene-expression-based classifiers (CMS and CRIS). Our aim was to evaluate whether these molecular and morphologic features, focusing on different levels of tumor biology, are interconnected or rather represent independent biomarkers.

Patient cohorts

Two independent patient cohorts were used in this study. The AMC-AJCC-90 cohort consists of stage II colon cancer patients that underwent intentionally curative surgery between 1997 and 2006 (GSE33113) (32). The second cohort (AC-ICAM) contains stage II and III colon cancer patients who underwent surgery at Leiden University Medical Centre, the Netherlands, between 2001-2015 (33) and were transcriptomically profiled in Sidra Medicine, Qatar. Patients with available formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) H&E sections and gene-expression data were included in this study.

CMS and CRIS classification

CMS classification was determined on microarray (AMC-AJCC-90 cohort) or mRNAseq gene expression data (AC-ICAM cohort) using the Random Forest CMS classifier (30). Nearest CMS labels were used. Patients from both cohorts were classified into CRIS subtypes using the 'CRIS classifier' package provided by Isella et al. (31).

MSI status

MSI status was previously determined in both cohort using two different methods. The AMC-AJCC-90 samples were analyzed using the MSI Analysis System, version 1.2 (Promega, Madison, Wisconsin, USA), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Samples were considered MSI when more than one out of five markers were instable. In the AC-ICAM cohort, MSI-status was determined on whole exome sequencing (WES) data using MANTIS (v.1.0.4), a tool for rapid detection of microsatellite instability (34). Briefly, MANTIS calculates and compares the instability scores of microsatellite regions between tumors and a matched reference genome. Samples are classified as MSI-H (MANTIS score > 0.4) or MSS (MANTIS score ≤ 0.4).

Ethical considerations

All research activities were performed with coded-anonymous tissue samples and data. All data and patient material were handled in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments, and the Code of conduct. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. The use of patient data and tissue were approved by the ethics/institutional review board at the respective institutions.

Histopathological features

All histopathological features were scored on FFPE H&E sections from the most invasive tumor part of the primary tumor. The observers were blinded for clinicopathological data and the CMS and CRIS classification. The TSR was previously scored according to recommendations in the AC-ICAM cohort (21,33). Within the AJCC-AMC90-cohort, two observers (MS and SW) scored the TSR and a third observer (HK) was consulted in case of disagreement. All other histopathologic biomarkers were scored by one observer (HK).

Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes:

Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were scored as an average count of lymphocytes present in the tumor epithelium (not the stromal compartment) within the borders of the invasive tumor at 200x magnification. TILs were scored in three categories: none/low, intermediate and high. Figure 1A shows an example of a TILs-high tumor.

Mucinous differentiation:

The presence of extracellular mucus was scored in percentages with 10% increments for the whole tumor area. For the analysis, tumors were categorized as mucus absent (<10%) versus present (≥10%) and mucinous (>50%) versus non-mucinous (≤50%) carcinoma. Tumors with 10% and >50% mucus are depicted in figure 1B and 1C.

Tumor-stroma ratio:

The tumor-stroma ratio was scored as previously described (21). In short, areas containing the highest amount of stroma were selected. Next, the percentage of stroma was scored in 10% increments in one vision-site, in which tumor cells were present at all borders using a 10x objective. Stroma-high was defined as >50% of stromal area and stroma-low as ≤50% stromal area. Figure 1D represents an example of a stroma-high tumor.

Tumor budding:

Tumor buds were defined as single cells or small clusters of up to four cells dissociated from the main tumor body. TB was scored at the invasive front within a single vision field using a 20x objective, according to the consensus recommendations (28). Two categories were used for statistical analyses: TB-low (0-4 buds) and TB-high (≥5 buds). An example of a TB-high tumor is shown in figure 1E.

Statistical analysis

Continuous data were compared using an independent t-test and are shown as mean and standard deviation. Categorical patient and tumor characteristics were compared using a χ²test. Contingency tables were constructed to analyze the association between histopathologic markers and CMS or CRIS subtypes. χ²test was used to test for statistical significance. Fisher’s exact test was used in case one or more cells had a value of zero. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Haldane correction was used to avoid errors in OR calculations when one or more cells in a data table had a value of zero. This correction adds 0.5 to all cells. Cohen’s kappa coefficient was used to determine the interobserver agreement. P-values are two-tailed and results <0.05 are considered significant. Statistical analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS software version 28 (SPSS, Inc. an IBM Company Chicago, IL, USA).

A total of 218 patients were retrospectively included in this study: 83 patients of the AMC-AJCC-90 cohort and 135 patients of the AC-ICAM cohort, of which 78 patients presented with stage II and 57 patients with stage III CC. Age, gender and tumor sidedness did not differ between the cohorts (Table 1). The majority of tumors (86.7%) showed invasion through the muscularis propria (T3).

CMS2 (33.9%) was the most prevalent subtype followed by CMS4 (28.0%). Within the CRIS-classification, CRIS-A (27.5%) and CRIS-C (28.9%) were the most prevalent subtypes. No significant differences were seen in the distribution of CMS and CRIS subtypes between the cohorts (Table 1).

Almost all CMS1 tumors were assigned to CRIS-A (46.5%) and CRIS-B (41.9%). CMS2 samples were partitioned into CRIS-C (60.8%), CRIS-D (17.6%) and CRIS-E (20.3%). CMS3 was predominantly assigned to CRIS-A (75.0%) and CMS4 was distributed across all five CRIS classes. This pattern of overlap is in line with previous results (31,35,36). The distribution of the histopathological features within CMS and CRIS subtypes is shown in tables 2 and 3. An overview of the calculated odds ratios between histopathological features and CMS subtypes, CRIS subtypes plus MSI-status is depicted in supplementary tables 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes:

TILs were scored as none/low in the majority of cases (77.1%). Intermediate and high levels of TILs were present in respectively 16.4% (n = 35) and 6.5% (n = 14). For odds ratio calculations, TILs were divided into two categories: none/low vs intermediate/high. As expected, intermediate/high levels of TILs were significantly associated with CMS1 (OR 5.587 95% CI 2.704-11.543, p <0.001) and to a lesser extend with CMS3 (OR 2.240 95% CI 1.056-4.751, p = 0.033) (Figure 2). Almost all CMS2 (65/72, 90.3%) and CMS4 (54/60, 90.0%) tumors contained a low number of TILs (Table 2 and Figure 3A).

Considering the CRIS classification, tumors with high levels of TILs were more likely to be assigned to CRIS-A and CRIS-B (OR 2.507 95% CI 1.280-4.908, p = 0.006 and OR 2.347 95% CI 1.079-5.010, p = 0.028) (Figure 2). The majority of tumors (105/120, 87.5%) assigned to the other subfamily (CRIS-C, D and E) were scored as TILs-low (Table 3, Figure 3A).

Mucinous differentiation:

Mucinous adenocarcinoma was identified in 11.7% (n = 25) of all cases, in line with previously reported incidences (37,38). Mucus (≥10%) was present in 30.8% (n = 66) of the tumors.

Strikingly, no mucinous tumors were classified as CMS2, the most prevalent CMS subtype (Table 2, Figure 3B). Mucinous tumors were more often seen within CMS1 (OR 3.152 95% CI 1.302-7.628, p = 0.008) and CRIS-A (OR 11.796 95% CI 4.418-31.491, p < 0.001) (Figure 2). 19 out of 25 (76.0%) mucinous tumors were classified as CRIS-A.

When analyzing the amount of mucus in the categories present or absent, a strong association was seen with CMS3 (OR 5.836 2.779-12.256, p < 0.001) (Figure 2). Mucus was present in 64.1% (n = 25) of all CMS3 tumors, compared to 53.5% (n = 23) in CMS1, 5.6% in CMS2 (n = 4) and 23.3% (n = 14) in CMS4. Almost all mucus containing tumors classified as CMS3 were assigned to CRIS-A (Figure 3C).

Tumor-stroma ratio:

Stroma-high tumors were seen in 33.5% of all cases, which is in line with previous reported percentages (39,40). A good inter-observer agreement was reached for scoring TSR in the AMC-AJCC-90 cohort between the two observers (SW and MS) with a Cohen’s kappa of 0.77. As expected, stroma-high tumors were significantly associated with CMS4 (OR 2.327 95% CI 1.263-4.289, p = 0.006) (Figure 2). Almost halve of the CMS4 tumors featured a high stromal content (Figure 3D). No associations were seen between TSR and CRIS-subtypes, which is in line with our expectations since the stromal compartment is not taken into account by the CRIS classifier.

Stroma-high tumors were more frequently scored as budding-high as compared to stroma-low tumors (52.4% vs 29.0%, OR 2.696 95% CI 1.356-5.362, p = 0.004). Comparing the histopathological features in any other combination did not reveal a significant association.

Tumor budding:

Two categories were used for statistical analyses: TB-low (0-4 buds) and TB-high (≥5 buds). Tumors were categorized as TB-high in 19.3%. Higher percentages of TB-high tumors, ranging from 28% to 34%, have been reported in literature (41,42). These studies included patients with stage I-IV colorectal cancer. Higher tumor budding is known to be correlated with higher TNM-stages and this could explain the lower percentage observed in our study (43). TB-high tumors were more prevalent within CMS4 with an OR of 2.040 (95% CI 1.009-4.126, p = 0.045) (Figure 2). CMS3 and CRIS-A tumors showed a limited number of buds (Table 2, Figure 3E). A significant association was seen between TB-high tumors and assignment into CRIS-B (2.247 95% CI 0.998-5.059, p = 0.046).

Microsatellite instability:

MSI status was known for 194/218 (89.0%) tumors. In total 44 out of 194 (22.7%) tumors were MSI. As expected, the majority of MSI tumors were classified as CMS1 (32/44, 72.7%). Within the CRIS classification, MSI tumors were divided into CRIS-A (23/44, 52.3%) and CRIS-B (16/44, 36.4%).

We also analyzed the association between histopathological features and MSI-status. We found a significant association between MSI-status and three histopathological features: TILs, mucinous differentiation and TSR. Tumors with a high number of TILs were more likely to be MSI (OR 6.571 95% CI 3.102 - 13.920, p < 0.001). More than halve of the MSI tumors (23/44, 52.3%) contained an intermediate or high number of TILs, as compared to 21/147 (14.3%) of MSS tumors (p < 0.001). Jenkins et al. assessed the presence of TILs in 1,098 colorectal cancer patients and reported similar numbers for MSS and MSI tumors (44).

Mucinous adenocarcinomas were also associated with MSI status (OR 4.567 95% CI 1.789-11.655, p = 0.001). More than half (25/44, 56.8%) of the MSI tumors contained ≥10% of mucus as opposed to 23.1% (34/149) of MSS tumors, (p < 0.001).

Stroma-high tumors were almost all classified as MSS (57/65, 87.7%). Only 8/44 (18.2%) MSI tumors were scored as stroma-high. This is significantly lower than the 57/150 (38.0%) of MSS tumors (p = 0.014). No associations were seen between tumor budding and MSI status.

Several histopathological features, like tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), mucinous differentiation, the tumor-stroma ratio (TSR) and tumor budding (TB), are under development or currently used in clinical practice to improve patient stratification. These distinct morphologic characteristics provide prognostic information and are able to capture some biological aspects of colon cancer (CC). To gain further insight into the exact underlying tumor biology, focus has extended to CC stratification based on the tumor transcriptome, which led to the development of the CMS and CRIS subtypes.

In this study, we assessed the association between four distinct histopathological features and two gene-expression based classifiers in 218 stage II and III colon cancer patients across two independent cohorts. In addition, we evaluated the adequacy of these features to identify CMS and CRIS subtypes. Our analyses revealed multiple significant associations between histopathological features and molecular subtypes. These associations were, however, not strong enough to adequately identify CMS or CRIS subtypes with histopathology alone.

The presence and quantity of TILs was positively correlated with CMS1, in line with previous observations (30, 45–48). CMS1 is known to be enriched for microsatellite instability (MSI), which we could confirm in this study with 32 out of 40 (80.0%) CMS1 tumors being classified as MSI. Deficient mismatch repair status causes high levels of mutations and subsequent neo-antigen formation, which induces an immune response (30, 49, 50). These observations could explain this particular genotype-phenotype correlation. In addition, the number of TILs has previously been shown to have value in predicting MSI-status (44, 51–54).

In contrast to our observations, previous studies identified two CMS subtypes with high expression of immune signatures: CMS1, as one would expect and CMS4 (46, 47). Both studies used bulk RNA expression data to evaluate the repertoire of tumor infiltrating immune cells of each CMS. In contrast to our study, this method does not consider the functional orientation of the different immune cells and both intra-epithelial as stromal immune cells were included. Next to this, both studies described the immune landscape of CMS4 as immune inflamed and pro-tumoral, with high expression of immunosuppressive cells, like M2 macrophages and regulatory T-cells. This specific immune landscape hampers activation of an adaptive immune response and might cause exclusion of TILs.

These observations could well explain the low number of TILs within CMS4 tumors in our study.

Mucinous adenocarcinomas, defined as tumors in which > 50% of the lesion is composed of extracellular mucus, constitute a distinct histologic subtype and are associated with BRAF mutations, MSI status and CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) (55). These findings imply that mucinous adenocarcinomas are likely associated with CMS1. In agreement with this hypothesis, we identified a higher prevalence of mucinous tumors within CMS1: 23.3% (10 out of 43), as opposed to 0.0%, 15.4% and 15.0% within CMS2, 3 and 4 respectively. Notably, no mucinous adenocarcinomas were classified as CMS2, which is the most prevalent CMS subtype. The substantially lower rate of mucinous tumors within CMS2 was confirmed in a retrospective review of pathology reports in 608 colorectal cancer patients (25) and in a recent study using a deep learning algorithm on digital slides to assess extracellular mucin-to-tumor area (26). Taken together, these results indicate a distinct biological background for mucinous adenocarcinomas compared to the classical CMS2 subtype.

Next to the 50% cut-off, we additionally categorized the amount of mucus as absent (< 10%) or present (≥ 10%) in our analyses. Interestingly, the presence of mucus was strongly associated with CMS3. Although, both CMS3 and mucinous tumors are known to be associated with KRAS mutations, the exact underlying mechanism for this association remains unclear (55). Elucidating this mechanism might be of clinical importance, since it was recently reported that a mucinous phenotype significantly impairs 5-year overall survival within CMS3 tumors (26).

In line with our hypothesis and previous observations, both stroma-high and budding-high tumors were significantly associated with CMS4 (41, 48, 56). Although a clear association between TSR and CMS4 was established, still 32 out of 61 (52.5%) CMS4 tumors were scored as stroma-low. Sandberg et al. reported similar numbers with 10 out of 18 (55.6%) CMS4 tumors scored as stroma-low (57). Importantly, these results clearly indicate that CMS4, the poor-prognosis subtype, cannot be identified solely based on stromal content. In fact, none of the histopathological features was able to adequately identify CMS subtypes. The most potent marker was the quantification of TILs. Within the TILs-high category, 11 out of 14 tumors were classified as CMS1, resulting in a positive predictive value of 78.6%. However, 32 out of 43 CMS1 tumors would be misclassified using this criterion.

Not much is known about the histopathologic characteristics of the CRIS-subtypes. Isella et al. reported a high prevalence of mucinous tumors within CRIS-A and inflammatory traits, as defined by gene expression, within the CRIS-A and B subfamily (31). These observations were confirmed in this study, with a striking association between CRIS-A and a mucinous phenotype. No associations were seen between TSR plus TB and CRIS-subtypes, except for a higher budding count in CRIS-B (p = 0.046).

The limited correlations shown in our study, imply that histopathologic features and molecular subtypes should be seen as distinct biomarkers. Combining both stratification methods could potentially improve patient stratification. For example, response to immunotherapy within CMS1 tumors might be different for tumors with a high number of TILs as compared to tumors with a low number of TILs. It would be of interest to evaluate the clinical relevance of combining CRIS or CMS subtypes with histopathologic markers.

An important strength of this study is the consistent scoring method of four different histopathological features in two independent cohorts for which the gold-standard RNA-based CMS and CRIS assignments were available. Our analyses are however potentially influenced by tumor heterogeneity, since the tumor area used for histopathologic assessment differs from the region sampled for RNA extraction and subsequent molecular classification. Furthermore, the use of more advanced scoring methods like immunohistochemistry and digital pathology might have extended our findings, but we were particularly interested in the value of routine histopathology.

As is well known, colon cancer is a complex and heterogeneous disease driven by both genetic alterations and the host response. Tumor behavior is highly influenced by the microenvironment, which is composed of varying cell types with inflammatory cells and stromal cells as key players. Each feature described in this study focusses on a different level of tumor biology. The number of TILs and amount of stroma mainly relates to the TME, while tumor budding and the CRIS-classification focus on the epithelial tumor compartment. Mucinous differentiation and the CMS classification are based on the entire tumor compartment.

Some characteristics are shared between the molecular subtypes and histopathologic features. Our thorough assessment of four different histopathological features indeed allowed us to confirm several previously reported associations and identify new genotype-phenotype correlations. However, our result clearly show that these different classification methods represent independent biomarkers. Combining both molecular and morphologic features could potentially improve patient stratification and clinical decision making in stage II and III colon cancer.

Acknowledgements

This study is funded by the Dutch Cancer Society, Alpe d’HuZes, grant number 6331. The Dutch Cancer Society is a non-profit society that funds cancer research and has had no direct influence in the structuring of the trial and will also not benefit financially from the outcome.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all patients. The use of patient data and tissue was approved by the ethics/institutional review board at the respective institutions. All data and patient material were handled in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments, and the Code of conduct.

Author Contributions

SW and MS analyzed the data. JM and JK were involved in study concept and design, and supervised the work. JM, JK, JR, DB, PK, JMR and WH aided in interpreting the results and worked on the manuscript. JR, DB, PK and DB provided the data of the AC-ICAM cohort. SW drafted the manuscript with input from all authors. All authors read and approved the final paper

Funding

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Subject ontology

Colon cancer, biomarker, consensus molecular subtypes, tumor-stroma ratio, mucinous adenocarcinoma

Conflict of interest:

JR reports having an advisory role for Merck-Serono, Pierre Fabre, Servier, MSD, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb and institutional scientific grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Servier, Hubrecht Organoid Technology (HUB).

Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB, Compton CC, Gershenwald JE, Brookland RK et al. The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more "personalized" approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin 67, 93–99 (2017).
Boland CR & Goel A. Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 138, 2073–2087.e2073 (2010).
Sinicrope FA, Foster NR, Thibodeau SN, Marsoni S, Monges G, Labianca R et al. DNA mismatch repair status and colon cancer recurrence and survival in clinical trials of 5-fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 103, 863–875 (2011).
Sargent DJ, Marsoni S, Monges G, Thibodeau SN, Labianca R, Hamilton SR et al. Defective mismatch repair as a predictive marker for lack of efficacy of fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy in colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 28, 3219–3226 (2010).
Aasebø K, Dragomir A, Sundström M, Mezheyeuski A, Edqvist PH, Eide GE et al. Consequences of a high incidence of microsatellite instability and BRAF-mutated tumors: A population-based cohort of metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Cancer Med 8, 3623–3635 (2019).
Kim CG, Ahn JB, Jung M, Beom SH, Kim C, Kim JH et al. Effects of microsatellite instability on recurrence patterns and outcomes in colorectal cancers. Br J Cancer 115, 25–33 (2016).
Venderbosch S, Nagtegaal ID, Maughan TS, Smith CG, Cheadle JP, Fisher D et al. Mismatch repair status and BRAF mutation status in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: a pooled analysis of the CAIRO, CAIRO2, COIN, and FOCUS studies. Clin Cancer Res 20, 5322–5330 (2014).
Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP, Syngal S, de la Chapelle A, Rüschoff J et al. Revised Bethesda Guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst 96, 261–268 (2004).
Suraweera N, Duval A, Reperant M, Vaury C, Furlan D, Leroy K et al. Evaluation of tumor microsatellite instability using five quasimonomorphic mononucleotide repeats and pentaplex PCR. Gastroenterology 123, 1804–1811 (2002).
Lindor NM, Burgart LJ, Leontovich O, Goldberg RM, Cunningham JM, Sargent DJ et al. Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing in phenotyping colorectal tumors. J Clin Oncol 20, 1043–1048 (2002).
Zhang X & Li J. Era of universal testing of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol 5, 12–19 (2013).
Hissong E, Crowe EP, Yantiss RK & Chen YT. Assessing colorectal cancer mismatch repair status in the modern era: a survey of current practices and re-evaluation of the role of microsatellite instability testing. Mod Pathol 31, 1756–1766 (2018).
Asif PJ, Longobardi C, Hahne M & Medema JP. The Role of Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts in Cancer Invasion and Metastasis. Cancers (Basel) 13 (2021).
Quante M, Varga J, Wang TC & Greten FR. The gastrointestinal tumor microenvironment. Gastroenterology 145, 63–78 (2013).
Marliot F, Pagès F & Galon J. Usefulness and robustness of Immunoscore for personalized management of cancer patients. Oncoimmunology 9, 1832324 (2020).
Idos GE, Kwok J, Bonthala N, Kysh L, Gruber SB & Qu C. The Prognostic Implications of Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sci Rep 10, 3360 (2020).
Pagès F, Mlecnik B, Marliot F, Bindea G, Ou FS, Bifulco C et al. International validation of the consensus Immunoscore for the classification of colon cancer: a prognostic and accuracy study. Lancet 391, 2128–2139 (2018).
Galon J, Mlecnik B, Bindea G, Angell HK, Berger A, Lagorce C et al. Towards the introduction of the 'Immunoscore' in the classification of malignant tumours. J Pathol 232, 199–209 (2014).
Pagès F, Kirilovsky A, Mlecnik B, Asslaber M, Tosolini M, Bindea G et al. In situ cytotoxic and memory T cells predict outcome in patients with early-stage colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 27, 5944–5951 (2009).
van Pelt GW, Sandberg TP, Morreau H, Gelderblom H, van Krieken J, Tollenaar R et al. The tumour-stroma ratio in colon cancer: the biological role and its prognostic impact. Histopathology 73, 197–206 (2018).
van Pelt GW, Kjaer-Frifeldt S, van Krieken J, Al Dieri R, Morreau H, Tollenaar R et al. Scoring the tumor-stroma ratio in colon cancer: procedure and recommendations. Virchows Arch (2018).
Huijbers A, Tollenaar RA, v Pelt GW, Zeestraten EC, Dutton S, McConkey CC et al. The proportion of tumor-stroma as a strong prognosticator for stage II and III colon cancer patients: validation in the VICTOR trial. Ann Oncol 24, 179–185 (2013).
Nagtegaal ID, Odze RD, Klimstra D, Paradis V, Rugge M, Schirmacher P et al. The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology 76, 182–188 (2020).
Verhulst J, Ferdinande L, Demetter P & Ceelen W. Mucinous subtype as prognostic factor in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Pathol 65, 381–388 (2012).
Khan M, Loree JM, Advani SM, Ning J, Li W, Pereira AAL et al. Prognostic Implications of Mucinous Differentiation in Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma Can Be Explained by Distinct Molecular and Clinicopathologic Characteristics. Clin Colorectal Cancer 17, e699-e709 (2018).
Nguyen HG, Lundström O, Blank A, Dawson H, Lugli A, Anisimova M et al. Image-based assessment of extracellular mucin-to-tumor area predicts consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) in colorectal cancer. Mod Pathol (2021).
Wang L, Hirano Y, Heng G, Ishii T, Kondo H, Hara K et al. Mucinous Adenocarcinoma as a High-risk Factor in Stage II Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-matched Study from Japan. Anticancer Res 40, 1651–1659 (2020).
Lugli A, Kirsch R, Ajioka Y, Bosman F, Cathomas G, Dawson H et al. Recommendations for reporting tumor budding in colorectal cancer based on the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) 2016. Mod Pathol 30, 1299–1311 (2017).
De Smedt L, Palmans S, Andel D, Govaere O, Boeckx B, Smeets D et al. Expression profiling of budding cells in colorectal cancer reveals an EMT-like phenotype and molecular subtype switching. Br J Cancer 116, 58–65 (2017).
Guinney J, Dienstmann R, Wang X, de Reynies A, Schlicker A, Soneson C et al. The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer. Nat Med 21, 1350–1356 (2015).
Isella C, Brundu F, Bellomo SE, Galimi F, Zanella E, Porporato R et al. Selective analysis of cancer-cell intrinsic transcriptional traits defines novel clinically relevant subtypes of colorectal cancer. Nat Commun 8, 15107 (2017).
De Sousa EMF, Wang X, Jansen M, Fessler E, Trinh A, de Rooij LP et al. Poor-prognosis colon cancer is defined by a molecularly distinct subtype and develops from serrated precursor lesions. Nat Med 19, 614–618 (2013).
Smit M. Tumour-stroma ratio outperforms tumour budding as biomarker in colon cancer: a cohort study. International Journal of Colorectal Disease 36, 2729–2737 (2021).
Kautto EA, Bonneville R, Miya J, Yu L, Krook MA, Reeser JW et al. Performance evaluation for rapid detection of pan-cancer microsatellite instability with MANTIS. Oncotarget 8, 7452–7463 (2017).
Allen WL, Dunne PD, McDade S, Scanlon E, Loughrey M, Coleman H et al. Transcriptional subtyping and CD8 immunohistochemistry identifies poor prognosis stage II/III colorectal cancer patients who benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. JCO Precis Oncol 2018 (2018).
Alderdice M, Richman SD, Gollins S, Stewart JP, Hurt C, Adams R et al. Prospective patient stratification into robust cancer-cell intrinsic subtypes from colorectal cancer biopsies. J Pathol 245, 19–28 (2018).
Leopoldo S, Lorena B, Cinzia A, Gabriella DC, Angela Luciana B, Renato C et al. Two subtypes of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colorectum: clinicopathological and genetic features. Ann Surg Oncol 15, 1429–1439 (2008).
Glasgow SC, Yu J, Carvalho LP, Shannon WD, Fleshman JW & McLeod HL. Unfavourable expression of pharmacologic markers in mucinous colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 92, 259–264 (2005).
Mesker WE, Liefers GJ, Junggeburt JM, van Pelt GW, Alberici P, Kuppen PJ et al. Presence of a high amount of stroma and downregulation of SMAD4 predict for worse survival for stage I-II colon cancer patients. Cell Oncol 31, 169–178 (2009).
Mesker WE, Junggeburt JM, Szuhai K, de Heer P, Morreau H, Tanke HJ et al. The carcinoma-stromal ratio of colon carcinoma is an independent factor for survival compared to lymph node status and tumor stage. Cell Oncol 29, 387–398 (2007).
Trinh A, Ladrach C, Dawson HE, Ten Hoorn S, Kuppen PJK, Reimers MS et al. Tumour budding is associated with the mesenchymal colon cancer subtype and RAS/RAF mutations: a study of 1320 colorectal cancers with Consensus Molecular Subgroup (CMS) data. Br J Cancer 119, 1244–1251 (2018).
Lang-Schwarz C, Melcher B, Haumaier F, Lang-Schwarz K, Rupprecht T, Vieth M et al. Budding and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes - combination of both parameters predicts survival in colorectal cancer and leads to new prognostic subgroups. Hum Pathol 79, 160–167 (2018).
Zlobec I, Dawson HE, Blank A, Bokhorst JM, Berger MD, Nagtegaal ID et al. Are tumour grade and tumour budding equivalent in colorectal cancer? A retrospective analysis of 771 patients. Eur J Cancer 130, 139–145 (2020).
Jenkins MA, Hayashi S, O'Shea AM, Burgart LJ, Smyrk TC, Shimizu D et al. Pathology features in Bethesda guidelines predict colorectal cancer microsatellite instability: a population-based study. Gastroenterology 133, 48–56 (2007).
Picard E, Verschoor CP, Ma GW & Pawelec G. Relationships Between Immune Landscapes, Genetic Subtypes and Responses to Immunotherapy in Colorectal Cancer. Front Immunol 11, 369 (2020).
Karpinski P, Rossowska J & Sasiadek MM. Immunological landscape of consensus clusters in colorectal cancer. Oncotarget 8, 105299–105311 (2017).
Becht E, de Reynies A, Giraldo NA, Pilati C, Buttard B, Lacroix L et al. Immune and Stromal Classification of Colorectal Cancer Is Associated with Molecular Subtypes and Relevant for Precision Immunotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 22, 4057–4066 (2016).
Sirinukunwattana K, Domingo E, Richman SD, Redmond KL, Blake A, Verrill C et al. Image-based consensus molecular subtype (imCMS) classification of colorectal cancer using deep learning. Gut (2020).
Chen YP, Zhang Y, Lv JW, Li YQ, Wang YQ, He QM et al. Genomic Analysis of Tumor Microenvironment Immune Types across 14 Solid Cancer Types: Immunotherapeutic Implications. Theranostics 7, 3585–3594 (2017).
Schumacher TN & Schreiber RD. Neoantigens in cancer immunotherapy. Science 348, 69–74 (2015).
Joost P, Bendahl PO, Halvarsson B, Rambech E & Nilbert M. Efficient and reproducible identification of mismatch repair deficient colon cancer: validation of the MMR index and comparison with other predictive models. BMC Clin Pathol 13, 33 (2013).
Greenson JK, Bonner JD, Ben-Yzhak O, Cohen HI, Miselevich I, Resnick MB et al. Phenotype of microsatellite unstable colorectal carcinomas: Well-differentiated and focally mucinous tumors and the absence of dirty necrosis correlate with microsatellite instability. Am J Surg Pathol 27, 563–570 (2003).
Smyrk TC, Watson P, Kaul K & Lynch HT. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes are a marker for microsatellite instability in colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 91, 2417–2422 (2001).
Alexander J, Watanabe T, Wu TT, Rashid A, Li S & Hamilton SR. Histopathological identification of colon cancer with microsatellite instability. Am J Pathol 158, 527–535 (2001).
Reynolds IS, Furney SJ, Kay EW, McNamara DA, Prehn JHM & Burke JP. Meta-analysis of the molecular associations of mucinous colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 106, 682–691 (2019).
Sandberg TP, Stuart M, Oosting J, Tollenaar R, Sier CFM & Mesker WE. Increased expression of cancer-associated fibroblast markers at the invasive front and its association with tumor-stroma ratio in colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer 19, 284 (2019).
Sandberg TP, Oosting J, van Pelt GW, Mesker WE, Tollenaar R & Morreau H. Molecular profiling of colorectal tumors stratified by the histological tumor-stroma ratio - Increased expression of galectin-1 in tumors with high stromal content. Oncotarget 9, 31502–31515 (2018).

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of the included cohorts. Age is depicted as mean with standard deviation, other characteristics as number and percentage. P-values are derived from comparison between the AMC90 and LUMC cohort.
		Combined	AMC90	LUMC
		(n = 218)	(n = 83)	(n = 135)	p-value
Age					0.818
	Mean (SD)	69.2 (11.8)	69.5 (13.1)	69.1 (10.9)	0.818
Gender
	Male	112 (51.4)	38 (45.8)	74 (54.8)	0.195
	Female	106 (48.6)	45 (54.2)	61 (45.2)	0.195
Localization
	Right	113 (51.8)	44 (53.0)	69 (51.1)	0.785
	Left	105 (48.2)	39 (47.0)	66 (48.9)	0.785
pT stage
	2	7 (3.2)	0 (0)	7 (5.2)	0.103
	3	189 (86.7)	75 (90.4)	114 (84.4)
	4	22 (10.1)	8 (9.6)	14 (10.4)
CMS
	1	43 (19.7)	20 (24.1)	23 (17.0)	0.310
	2	74 (33.9)	31 (37.3)	43 (31.9)
	3	40 (18.3)	12 (14.5)	28 (20.7)
	4	61 (28.0)	20 (24.1)	41 (30.4)
CRIS
	A	60 (27.5)	26 (31.3)	34 (25.2)	0.754
	B	35 (16.1)	12 (14.5)	23 (17.0)
	C	63 (28.9)	21 (25.3)	42 (31.1)
	D	35 (16.1)	15 (18.1)	20 (14.8)
	E	25 (11.5)	9 (10.8)	16 (11.9)

Table 2

Distribution of histopathologic scores over the consensus molecular subtypes, shown as number and percentage. TILs = tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, TSR = tumor-stroma ratio. P-values are derived from an overall comparison between subtypes.
		CMS1	CMS2	CMS3	CMS4	p-value
TILs
	None/low	21 (48.8)	65 (90.3)	25 (64.1)	54 (90.0)	< 0.001
	Intermediate	11 (25.6)	7 (9.7)	12 (30.8)	5 (8.3)
	High	11 (25.6)	0 (0)	2 (5.1)	1 (1.7)
Mucus
	≤ 50%	33 (76.7)	72 (100)	33 (84.6)	51 (85.0)	0.001
	> 50%	10 (23.3)	0 (0)	6 (15.4)	9 (15.0)	0.001
Mucus
	< 10%	20 (46.5)	68 (94.4)	14 (35.9)	46 (76.7)	< 0.001
	≥ 10%	23 (53.5)	4 (5.6)	25 (64.1)	14 (23.3)	< 0.001
TSR
	Stroma-low	32 (74.4)	55 (74.3)	26 (65.0)	32 (52.5)	0.034
	Stroma-high	11 (25.6)	19 (25.7)	14 (35.0)	29 (47.5)	0.034
Tumor Budding
	Low (< 5)	33 (76.7)	63 (85.1)	36 (90.0)	44 (72.1)	0.271
	Intermediate (5–9)	7 (16.3)	7 (9.5)	2 (5.0)	13 (21.3)
	High (≥ 10)	3 (7.0)	4 (5.4)	2 (5.0)	4 (6.6)

Table 3

Distribution of histopathologic scores over the CRC intrinsic subtypes, shown as number and percentage. TILs = tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, TSR = tumor-stroma ratio. P-values are derived from an overall comparison between subtypes.
		CRIS-A	CRIS-B	CRIS-C	CRIS-D	CRIS-E	p-value
TILs
	None/low	38 (64.4)	22 (62.9)	56 (90.3)	29 (85.3)	20 (83.3)	0.001
	Intermediate	17 (28.8)	7 (20.0)	6 (9.7)	2 (5.9)	3 (12.5)
	High	4 (6.8)	6 (17.1)	0 (0)	3 (8.8)	1 (4.2)
Mucus
	≤ 50%	40 (67.8)	31 (88.6)	61 (98.4)	33 (97.1)	24 (100)	< 0.001
	> 50%	19 (32.2)	4 (11.4)	1 (1.6)	1 (2.9)	0 (0)	< 0.001
Mucus
	< 10%	14 (23.7)	26 (74.3)	56 (90.3)	31 (91.2)	21 (87.5)	< 0.001
	≥ 10%	45 (76.3)	9 (25.7)	6 (9.7)	3 (8.8)	3 (12.5)	< 0.001
TSR
	Stroma-low	42 (70.0)	26 (74.3)	42 (66.7)	19 (54.3)	16 (64.0)	0.448
	Stroma-high	18 (30.0)	9 (25.7)	21 (33.3)	16 (45.7)	9 (36.0)	0.448
Tumor Budding
	Low (< 5)	53 (88.3)	24 (68.6)	50 (79.4)	28 (80.0)	21 (84.0)	0.429
	Intermediate (5–9)	4 (6.7)	9 (25.7)	9 (14.3)	5 (14.3)	2 (8.0)
	High (≥ 10)	3 (5.0)	2 (5.7)	4 (6.3)	2 (5.7)	2 (8.0)

Yes there is potential conflict of interest.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Histopathological features have limited correlation with gene expression-based classifiers

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1