About the Authors:
David McClelland
Affiliation: Department of Pathology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
Graeme I Murray
* E-mail: [email protected]
Affiliation: Pathology, Division of Applied Medicine, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
Introduction
Colorectal carcinoma is the most common malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract and is a leading cause of cancer related deaths [1]. Prognosis is predicted by the extent of tumour spread locally, the presence of lymphatic system involvement and/or metastasis to other organs which are encompassed in TNM or Dukes’ staging. Outwith these classical staging criteria, the presence of tumour cells within veins outside the bowel wall (extramural venous invasion) is an important predictor of tumour recurrence or metastasis. Consequently extramural venous invasion (EMVI) is an independent indicator of poor prognosis in colorectal carcinoma [2–11]. It should be acknowledged that in addition to that of extramural venous channels, there is an emerging role for intramural venous channels located in the submucosa or muscularis propria (intramural venous invasion, MVI) [5, 7]. However, the prognostic significance of MVI alone is still unclear [4, 12].
Whilst not directly affecting overall tumour stage, the presence of EMVI does confer high risk disease status [13, 14]. Indeed, about 25–30% of patients with lymph node negative disease die from recurrent or metastatic disease, emphasising the role of vascular spread in colorectal cancer dissemination [15–17].
Therefore, the United Kingdom Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) has proposed a minimum rate of detection of EMVI in colorectal cancer excision specimens. This study reports on data collected from 2005 to 2013, during which time the RCPath dataset for colorectal cancer (2nd edition) published in 2007 recommended a frequency of detection of EMVI of 20% [18].
EMVI was defined by Talbot and colleagues as the presence of tumour within an endothelium-lined space that is either surrounded by a rim of muscle or contains red blood cells [19]. Additionally, the so called orphan artery sign is suggestive; where a rounded or elongated tumour profile that is not in direct continuity with the advancing tumour margin is identified adjacent to an artery, especially when no accompanying vein can be seen [3]. Whilst it is possible to detect EMVI on a haematoxylin and eosin stained slide, the application of ancillary techniques such as elastin stains or immunohistochemistry have been shown to significantly increase detection rates [2, 7, 8, 16, 20–24].
This comprehensive study assesses the trend in the evaluation of EMVI in a large cohort of patients with colorectal cancer over a nine year period in a single centre, focusing on its prognostic significance with respect to other colorectal cancer staging criteria and potential confounding factors.
Materials and Methods
Study population
This study included 2405 patients who had their colorectal cancer pathology resection specimens reported by the Department of Pathology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary from 2005–2013. The Department of Pathology at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary is a regional pathology centre receiving pathology specimens from four acute hospitals over three health authorities. Aberdeen Royal Infirmary (an academic teaching hospital centre) and Dr Gray’s Hospital, Elgin (a district general hospital) are both in NHS Grampian, while Balfour Hospital, Kirkwall (NHS Orkney) and Gilbert Bain Hospital, Lerwick (NHS Shetland) are both remote and rural hospitals. Approximately 75% of the colorectal cancer surgery is performed at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. Relevant pathological data was extracted at the time of the weekly colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team meeting from the pathology reports of the resected colorectal cancer excision specimens and a database constructed.
The database was compiled using prospectively collected histopathological data from colorectal cancers resected between 2005 and 2013. The information recorded in this database includes age, gender, year of operation, administration of neoadjuvant therapy, whether the tumour was screen detected, tumour site, tumour differentiation, tumour (T) stage, the presence of EMVI, total number of lymph nodes examined, number of lymph nodes involved by metastatic tumour, lymph node (N) stage and Dukes’ stage. Information for each parameter was available for every patient. Additionally, survival data (all-cause mortality) was available for a subset of 1004 patients (number of deaths = 243). The histopathology of all the cases in this database were reported according to the criteria set out in the RCPath dataset for the reporting of colorectal cancer excision specimens (2nd edition 2007–14) which incorporates guidance from TNM5 and all cases were also subject to multi-disciplinary review [18]. Throughout this period of time NHS Grampian has been a centre for the NHS Scotland bowel screening programme (2000–2006, pilot centre for evaluation of programme, 2007-part of national programme following its implementation throughout Scotland).
Assessment of EMVI
The presence of tumour within venous structures beyond the bowel wall was assessed on haematoxylin and eosin stained sections of tumour, with the additional use of elastic haematoxylin and eosin staining in cases where EMVI was suspected but not clearly identified on microscopic examination of the haematoxylin and eosin stained sections (Fig 1).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Fig 1. EMVI in colorectal cancer.
(A) Haematoxylin and eosin. (B) Elastic haematoxylin and eosin.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144987.g001
Statistics
The database was compiled in Excel 2007 and then imported into IBM SPSS version 21 for Windows 7TM (IBM, Portsmouth, UK) to perform data analysis. Statistical comparisons between groups were performed using chi-square (χ2) test. Survival curves were prepared using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank (Mantel-Cox) analysis. Multivariate analysis with Cox regression (proportional hazard analysis) was also performed.
Ethics
The project was carried out with ethics approval (ref. no. 08/S0801/81) from the North of Scotland research ethics committee. The research ethics committee did not require written participant consent and data was anonymised prior to analysis.
Results
The clinico-pathological parameters collected for the dataset are summarised in Table 1.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Table 1. Clinico-pathological characteristics of the patients and their tumours.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144987.t001
In this study, EMVI was reported in 27.9% of all colorectal cancer cases (n = 2405). EMVI was reported in 31.4% of cases where no neoadjuvant therapy had been received (n = 1928) compared with 13.4% in cases receiving neoadjuvant therapy (n = 477). Cases were subsequently grouped for analysis into those that had received neoadjuvant therapy or those that had not and cases that were screen detected or were not. Further subdivision into stage (primary tumour stage, lymph node stage or Dukes’ stage) and site of primary tumour was carried out for analysis.
The relationship of EMVI with tumour site
Tumours were grouped into the categories of proximal (appendix, caecum, ascending colon, hepatic flexure and transverse colon tumours), distal (splenic flexure, descending colon and sigmoid colon tumours) and rectum depending on their anatomical location.
When all cases of colorectal cancer were considered (n = 2405), the frequency of EMVI differed significantly depending on the primary tumour site. EMVI was reported in 35.0% of proximal, 29.0% of distal and 17.0% of rectum cases (χ2 = 66.83, p<0.001) (Fig 2).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Fig 2. Frequency of EMVI in relation to site of primary tumour.
(A) All cases. (B) Cases that had not received neoadjuvant therapy. (C) Cases that had received neoadjuvant therapy. (D) Non-screen-detected cases. (E) Bowel cancer screening detected cases.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144987.g002
In cases that had not received neoadjuvant therapy (n = 1928), the frequency of EMVI differed significantly depending on site of primary tumour. EMVI was reported in 35.0% of proximal, 28.0% of distal and 26.5% of rectum cases (χ2 = 12.03, p<0.005). For cases that had received neoadjuvant therapy (n = 477), the frequency of EMVI differed significantly depending on site of primary tumour. EMVI was reported in 25.0% of proximal, 50.0% of distal and 11.8% of rectum cases (χ2 = 20.82, p<0.001).
When cases that had not been screen detected were analysed (n = 2077) the frequency of EMVI differed significantly depending on site of primary tumour. EMVI was reported in 36.6% of proximal, 29.3% of distal and 15.2% of rectum cases (χ2 = 77.97, p<0.001). Whereas, in screen detected cases (n = 328) EMVI reporting did not differ significantly between sites of primary tumour. EMVI was reported in 21.6% of proximal, 24.4% of distal and 24.7% of rectum cases (χ2 = 0.373, p = 0.830).
The relationship of EMVI with tumour stage
The rate of EMVI also varied significantly depending on tumour (T) stage of primary tumour when all cases were considered. EMVI was reported in 1.8% of T0 (complete pathological response of primary tumour to neoadjuvant therapy), 0.7% of T1, 3.4% of T2, 27.6% of T3 and 56.9% of T4 tumours (χ2 = 390.212, p<0.001) (Fig 3).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Fig 3. Frequency of EMVI reporting per tumour (T) stage of primary tumour.
(A) All cases. (B) Cases that had not received neoadjuvant therapy. (C) Cases that had received neoadjuvant therapy. (D) Non-screen-detected cases. (E) Bowel cancer screening detected cases. T0 represents cases in which there was a complete pathological response of the primary tumour to neoadjuvant therapy.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144987.g003
In cases that had not received neoadjuvant therapy, EMVI was present in 0.9% of T1 tumours, 3.6% of T2 tumours, 28.2% of T3 tumours and 57.2% T4 tumours (χ2 = 268.188, p<0.001). For cases that had received neoadjuvant therapy, the presence of EMVI differed significantly depending on T stage of primary tumour. EMVI was reported in 1.8% of T0, 0% of T1, 3.0% of T2, 24.1% of T3 and 50% of T4 cases (χ2 = 74.173, p<0.001).
When cases that had not been screen detected were analysed, the presence of EMVI differed significantly depending on T stage of primary tumour. EMVI was reported in 2.1% of T0, 0% of T1, 2.6% of T2, 27.1% of T3 and 57.3% of T4 cases (χ2 = 344.376, p<0.001). There was also a significant difference in the frequency of EMVI depending on T stage of primary tumour in screen detected cases. EMVI was reported in 0% of T0, 2.6% of T1, 6.2% of T2, 31.1% of T3 and 51.6% of T4 cases (χ2 = 43.866, p<0.001).
The relationship of EMVI with lymph node stage
When all cases were considered, the presence of EMVI differed significantly depending on lymph node (N) stage of primary tumour. EMVI was reported in 14.9% of N0, 35.5% of N1 and 65.3% of N2, cases (χ2 = 392.878, p<0.001) (Fig 4).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Fig 4. Frequency of EMVI reporting per lymph node (N) stage of primary tumour.
(A) All cases. (B) Cases that had not received neoadjuvant therapy. (C) Cases that had received neoadjuvant therapy. (D) Non-screen-detected cases. (E) Bowel cancer screening detected cases.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144987.g004
In cases that had not received neoadjuvant therapy, there was a significant difference in EMVI rate depending on N stage, with EMVI present in 17.5% of N0, 37.2% of N1 and 66.6% of N2 tumours respectively (χ2 = 294.368, p<0.001). When cases that had received neoadjuvant therapy are considered, there is also a significant difference in EMVI rate depending on N stage. EMVI was present in 7.2% of N0, 24.4% of N1 and 52.9% of N2 tumours respectively (χ2 = 66.222, p<0.001).
Cases that were not screen detected showed a significant difference in EMVI rate depending on N stage, with EMVI present in 15.1% of N0, 35.6% of N1 and 66.4% of N2 tumours respectively (χ2 = 351.707, p<0.001). A significant difference in the frequency of EMVI depending on N stage was also seen in cases that had been screen detected, with EMVI present in 13.4% of N0, 34.9% of N1 and 55.6% of N2 cases respectively (χ2 = 38.513, p<0.001).
The relationship of EMVI with Dukes’ stage
The frequency of EMVI reporting in different Dukes’ stage tumours was also considered. When all cases were analysed, EMVI was reported in 1.1% of Dukes’ A cases, 21.6% of Dukes’ B cases and 46.8% of Dukes’ C cases. (χ2 = 365.373, p<0.001) (Fig 5).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Fig 5. Frequency of EMVI reporting per Dukes’ stage of primary tumour.
(A) All cases. (B) Cases that had not received neoadjuvant therapy. (C) Cases that had received neoadjuvant therapy. (D) Non-screen-detected cases. (E) Bowel cancer screening detected cases.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144987.g005
For cases that had not received neoadjuvant therapy EMVI was reported in 1.2% of Dukes’ A cases, 22.2% of Dukes’ B cases and 48.6% of Dukes’ C cases (χ2 = 253.753, p<0.001). In cases that had received neoadjuvant therapy, EMVI was reported in 0.8% of Dukes’ A cases, 17.9% of Dukes’ B cases and 33.6% of Dukes’ C cases (χ2 = 76.022, p<0.001).
In non-screen detected cases, EMVI was reported in 0.3% of Dukes’ A cases, 21.6% of Dukes’ B cases and 47.5% of Dukes’ C cases (χ2 = 319.239, p<0.001). For those cases that were screen detected, EMVI was reported in 3.7% of Dukes’ A, 21.4% of Dukes’ B and 41.7% of Dukes’ C tumours (χ2 = 44.586, p<0.001).
EMVI and survival analysis
Follow-up data were available for all-cause mortality over an 86 month period in 1004 of the 2405 patients in the database (41.7%). Of these, 190 (18.9%) cases had EMVI and 814 (81.1%) did not. When all cases were considered, EMVI reduced patient survival over time and these survival distributions were statistically different (χ2 = 117.110, p<0.001, HR = 0.207 (95% CI 0.159–0.269), Mantel-Cox log-rank test) (Fig 6).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Fig 6. Relationship between extramural venous invasion and survival.
(A) All patients (n = 1004). (B) Patients who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy (n = 731). (C) Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy (n = 273). (D) Colon cancer cases that did not receive neoadjuvant therapy (n = 653). (E) All rectal cancer cases (n = 396). (F) Rectal cancer cases that received neoadjuvant therapy (n = 318). (G) Rectal cancer cases that did not receive neoadjuvant therapy (n = 78).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144987.g006
Survival data was available for 731 of the cases that had not received neoadjuvant therapy. Of these, 166 (22.7%) had EMVI and 565 (77.3%) did not. The presence of EMVI was associated with significantly reduced patient survival over time (χ2 = 113.741, p<0.001, HR = 0.241 (95% CI 0.182–0.321, Mantel-Cox log-rank test).
Survival data was available for 273 of the cases that had received neoadjuvant therapy. Of these, 24 (8.8%) had EMVI and 249 (91.2%) did not. The presence of EMVI was associated with significantly reduced patient survival over time (χ2 = 43.639, p<0.001, HR = 0.140 (95% CI 0.071–0.277, Mantel-Cox log-rank test).
When the cases of colon cancer that had not received neoadjuvant therapy (n = 653) were considered, 154 (23.6%) had EMVI and 499 (76.4%) did not. The presence of EMVI was associated with significantly reduced patient survival over time (χ2 = 99.888, p<0.001, HR = 0.247 (95% CI 0.184–0.333, Mantel-Cox log-rank test).
When all rectal cancers (n = 306) were considered, EMVI was present in 34 (11.1%) and absent in 359 (89.9%) of cases. The presence of EMVI was associated with significantly reduced patient survival over time (χ2 = 61.300, p<0.001, HR = 0.138 (95% CI 0.077–0.246, Mantel-Cox log-rank test). Selection of rectal cancer cases that had received neoadjuvant therapy (n = 262) showed that 22 cases (8.4%) had EMVI and 240 cases (91.6%) did not. The presence of EMVI was associated with significantly reduced patient survival over time (χ2 = 42.397, p<0.001, HR = 0.133 (95% CI 0.065–0.272, Mantel-Cox log-rank test). A total of 78 rectal cancers had not received neoadjuvant therapy. Of these, 12 (15.4%) had EMVI and 66 (84.6%) did not. The presence of EMVI was associated with significantly reduced patient survival over time (χ2 = 16.914, p = 0.001, HR = 0.154 (95% CI 0.056–0.425, Mantel-Cox log-rank test).
When all cases of Dukes’ B colorectal cancers were analysed (n = 372), EMVI was present in 56 (15.1%) and not present in 316 (84.9%). The presence of EMVI was associated with significantly reduced patient survival over time (χ2 = 22.607, p<0.001, HR = 0.289 (95% CI 0.167–0.499, Mantel-Cox log-rank test) (Fig 7).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Fig 7. Relationship between extramural venous invasion and survival in Dukes’ B cancers.
(A) All patients (n = 372). (B) Patients who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy (n = 301). (C) Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy (n = 71).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144987.g007
For Dukes’ B cases that had not received neoadjuvant therapy (n = 301), 51 (16.9%) had EMVI and 250 (83.1%) did not. The presence of EMVI was associated with significantly reduced patient survival over time (χ2 = 21.370, p<0.001, HR = 0.272 (95% CI 0.151–0.492, Mantel-Cox log-rank test).
Survival data was available for 71 Dukes’ B colorectal cancer cases that had received neoadjuvant therapy. A total of 5 (7.0%) had EMVI and 66 (93%) did not. The presence of EMVI was not associated with significantly reduced patient survival over time (χ2 = 0.874, p = 0.350, HR = 0.492 (95% CI 0.107–2.264, Mantel-Cox log-rank test).
When all cases of Dukes’ C colorectal cancers were analysed (n = 390), EMVI was present in 132 (33.0%) and not present in 267 (67.0%). The presence of EMVI was associated with significantly reduced patient survival over time (χ2 = 68.688, p<0.001, HR = 0.279 (95% CI 0.202–0.386, Mantel-Cox log-rank test) (Fig 8).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Fig 8. Relationship between extramural venous invasion and survival in Dukes’ C cancers.
(A) All patients (n = 390). (B) Patients who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy (n = 319). (C) Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy (n = 71).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144987.g008
For Dukes’ C cases that had not received neoadjuvant therapy (n = 319), 113 (35.4%) had EMVI and 206 (64.6%) did not. The presence of EMVI was associated with significantly reduced patient survival over time (χ2 = 54.319, p<0.001, HR = 0.291 (95% CI 0.205–0.414, Mantel-Cox log-rank test).
Survival data was available in 71 Dukes’ C colorectal cancer cases that had received neoadjuvant therapy. A total of 19 (26.8%) had EMVI and 52 (73.2%) did not. The presence of EMVI was associated with significantly reduced patient survival over time (χ2 = 12.286, p<0.001, HR = 0.246 (95% CI 0.105–0.577, Mantel-Cox log-rank test).
There were 879 colorectal cancer cases in the non-screen-detected group for which survival data was available. Of these, 167 (19.0%) had EMVI and 712 (81.0%) did not. The presence of EMVI was associated with significantly reduced patient survival over time (χ2 = 178.264, p<0.001, HR = 0.191 (95% CI 0.146–0.251, Mantel-Cox log-rank test). There were 638 non-screen-detected colorectal cancers that had not received neoadjuvant therapy. Of these, 147 (23.0%) had EMVI and 491 (77%) did not. The presence of EMVI was associated with significantly reduced patient survival over time (χ2 = 117.721, p<0.001, HR = 0.226 (95% CI 0.168–0.303, Mantel-Cox log-rank test). A total of 241 non-screen-detected colorectal cancer cases that had received neoadjuvant therapy were available for survival analysis. Twenty cases (8.3%) had EMVI and 221 cases (91.7%) did not. The presence of EMVI was associated with significantly reduced patient survival over time (χ2 = 50.759, p<0.001, HR = 0.115 (95% CI 0.056–0.235, Mantel-Cox log-rank test) (Fig 9).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Fig 9. Relationship between extramural venous invasion and survival and screening in colorectal cancers.
(A) All non-screen detected cancer patients (n = 879). (B) Non-screen-detected cancer patients who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy (n = 638). (C) Non-screen-detected cancer patients who received neoadjuvant therapy (n = 241). (D) All bowel cancer screening detected cases (n = 125). (E) Bowel cancer screening detected patients who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy (n = 93).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144987.g009
Of the bowel cancer screening detected cases in which survival data was available (n = 125), 23 (18.4%) had EMVI and 102 (81.6%) did not. In this group, EMVI was not associated with a significantly reduced patient survival over time (χ2 = 3.237, p = 0.072, HR = 0.384 (95% CI 0.130–1.133, Mantel-Cox log-rank test). Within this group, 93 had not received neoadjuvant therapy. 19 (20.4%) had EMVI and 74 (79.6%) did not. There was no significant reduction in patient survival over time in this group (χ2 = 1.498, p = 0.221, HR = 0.486 (95% CI 0.149–1.584, Mantel-Cox log-rank test).
Multivariate analysis
Multi-variate analysis showed that EMVI was a highly significant independent prognostic factor (p<0.001) when other tumour dependent factors including tumour stage, lymph node stage, Dukes stage, tumour site and degree of tumour differentiation as well as patient specific factors of age and gender are considered (Tables 2 and 3).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Table 2. The relationship between clinico-pathological characteristics and overall survival, when tumour stage and lymph node status are covariates and primary tumour site is grouped as proximal, distal or rectum.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144987.t002
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Table 3. The relationship between clinico-pathological characteristics and overall survival, when Dukes’ stage is a covariate and primary tumour site is grouped as proximal, distal or rectum.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144987.t003
EMVI was not a significant prognostic cofactor in screen detected cases but was in non-screen detected cases (Tables 4 and 5).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Table 4. The relationship between clinico-pathological characteristics and overall survival when tumour and lymph node stage are covariates and primary tumour site is grouped as proximal, distal or rectum.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144987.t004
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Table 5. The relationship between clinico-pathological characteristics and overall survival when Dukes’ stage is a covariate and primary tumour site is grouped as proximal, distal or rectum.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144987.t005
Discussion
It is important for individual centres reporting colorectal excision specimen to demonstrate an appropriate frequency of detection of pathological prognostic factors taking account of confounding factors e.g. proportion of patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy and proportion of cases identified through a bowel cancer screening programme. Individual centres should also demonstrate that the pathological factors that are assumed to be prognostically significant are indeed prognostically significant in their population. This large study from a single centre utilises prospectively collected data to comprehensively assess the evaluation of EMVI in colorectal cancer resection specimens over a nine year period and to consider potential confounding factors including neoadjuvant therapy and the influence of bowel cancer screening. It uses a prospectively collected dataset to examine in detail the significance of the reporting of EMVI on mortality in this population. All of the data derives from a single histopathology department, thereby reducing data collection and reporting bias.
There is well documented variation between centres in the demonstration of EMVI [1, 5, 7, 12, 16, 19–27]. Despite which, EMVI is recognised as an important prognostic feature [12, 16, 22, 28–30]. As such, reporting of the presence or absence of EMVI in colorectal cancer excision specimens is recommended by professional organisations including the Royal College of Pathologists (UK) and the College of American Pathologists [3, 9]. The consequence of accurate detection of EMVI is that patients with lymph node negative colorectal cancer (stage II/Dukes’ B disease) but with EMVI and/or other adverse prognostic features (including tumour perforation, serosal involvement, incomplete tumour resection) may benefit from and should be considered for adjuvant chemotherapy [14, 31, 32]. The presence of EMVI has become prognostically more relevant following the introduction in the UK of bowel cancer screening programmes, as this has resulted in the more frequent resection of lymph node negative tumours.
This study shows that when all cases are analysed, detection of EMVI exceeds the standard set by the Royal College of Pathologists over the same time period [18]. In addition, exclusion of cases in which preoperative neoadjuvant therapy had been given and which were potentially down staged, resulted in both the 2nd edition RCPath standard (20%) as well as the revised 3rd edition (2014) RCPath standard (30%) being surpassed [3, 18]. Albeit the data included in this study is prior to the publication of the third edition of the RCPath colorectal cancer dataset [3].
As might be expected, EMVI is more common in higher stage (T-, N- and Dukes’ stage) tumours and this study has demonstrated a stage dependent significant difference irrespective of whether the cases were screen-detected or not or if there had been neoadjuvant therapy or not. It has also shown the frequency of the identification of EMVI varied significantly depending on site of primary tumour when all cases, non-screen-detected cases, cases that had received neoadjuvant therapy and also those cases that had not. There was no significant tumour site dependent difference in the frequency of EMVI reporting in colorectal cancer cases that were detected by the bowel screening programme. It is not clear if that represent the smaller number of bowel cancer screening detected cases or reflects a difference in the biology between symptomatic colorectal cancer and screen detected cancers.
Whilst the frequency of EMVI appears closely related to tumour stage, multivariate analysis has shown that EMVI is an independent predictor of poor prognosis, as are patient age and tumour stage. This study allowed assessment of all-cause mortality in a subgroup of patients. Overall, EMVI was associated with statistically significantly reduced survival. Only in screen-detected cases (n = 125) and in Dukes’ B cases following neoadjuvant therapy (n = 71) was EMVI not associated with a significant reduction in survival. However, this lack of significance may reflect the limited amount of survival data available in those groups.
EMVI is clearly an important parameter with regards to patient prognosis and the post-operative management of colorectal cancer. Adequate reporting is therefore paramount and may be optimised with the use of ancillary techniques such as elastic haematoxylin and eosin staining [2, 7, 8, 16, 20–23]. The data presented supports the need for accurate assessment and reporting of EMVI along with other prognostic factors such as lymph node yield, lymph node ratio and relevant biomarkers to facilitate the decision making process of colorectal cancer treatment [33–37].
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: DM GIM. Performed the experiments: DM GIM. Analyzed the data: DM GIM. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: DM GIM. Wrote the paper: DM GIM.
Citation: McClelland D, Murray GI (2015) A Comprehensive Study of Extramural Venous Invasion in Colorectal Cancer. PLoS ONE 10(12): e0144987. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144987
1. Messenger DE, Driman DK, Kirsch R. Developments in the assessment of venous invasion in colorectal cancer: implications for future practice and patient outcome. Hum Pathol 2012;43:965–973. pmid:22406362
2. Dawson H, Kirsch R, Driman DK, Messenger DE, Assarzadegan N, Riddell RH. Optimizing the detection of venous invasion in colorectal cancer: the Ontario, Canada, experience and beyond. Front Oncol 2015;5:354.
3. Loughrey M, Quirke P, Shepherd NA. Standards and datasets for reporting cancers. Dataset for colorectal cancer histopathology reports. 3rd edition The Royal College of Pathologists, London, UK, 2014. Available: http://www.rcpath.org/publications-media/publications/datasets/colorectal-cancer.htm
4. Gibson KM, Chan C, Chapuis PH, Dent OF, Bokey L. Mural and extramural venous invasion and prognosis in colorectal Cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2014;57:919–926
5. Betge J, Pollheimer MJ, Lindtner RA, Kornprat P, Schlemmer A, Rehak P, et al. Intramural and extramural vascular invasion in colorectal cancer: prognostic significance and quality of pathology reporting. Cancer 2012;118:628–638. pmid:21751188
6. Dirschmid K, Sterlacci W, Oellig F, Edlinger M, Jasarevic Z, Dirschmid H, et al. Absence of extramural venous invasion is an excellent predictor of metastasis-free survival in colorectal carcinoma stage II–a study using tangential tissue sectioning. J Clin Path 2012; 65:619–623. pmid:22554966
7. Howlett CJ, Tweedie EJ, Driman DK. Use of an elastic stain to show venous invasion in colorectal carcinoma: a simple technique for detection of an important prognostic factor. J Clin Path 2009;62:1021–1025. pmid:19861561
8. Vass DG, Ainsworth R, Anderson JH, Murray D, Foulis AK. The value of an elastic tissue stain in detecting venous invasion in colorectal cancer. J Clin Path 2004;57:769–772. pmid:15220375
9. Compton CC, Fielding LP, Burgart LJ, Conley B, Hamilton SR, Hammond ME, et al. Prognostic factors in colorectal cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement (1999). Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124: 979–994. pmid:10888773
10. Horn A, Dahl O, Morild I. Venous and neural invasion as predictors of recurrence in rectal adenocarcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;349:798–804.
11. Minsky BD, Mies C, Recht A, Harvey W, Mies C. Potentially curative surgery of colon cancer: the influence of blood vessel invasion. Cancer 1988;61:1417–1424. pmid:3345494
12. Petersen VC, Baxter KJ, Love SB, Shepherd NA. Identification of objective pathological prognostic determinants and models of prognosis in Dukes’ B colon cancer. Gut 2002;51:65–69. pmid:12077094
13. Colorectal cancer quality performance indicators. Available: http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/our_work/cancer_care_improvement/programme_resources/cancer_qpis.aspx
14. Benson AB III, Schrag D, Somerfield MR, Cohen Am, Fiqueredo AT, Flynn PJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3408–3419. pmid:15199089
15. Young PE, Womeldorph CM, Johnson EK, Maykel JA, Brucher B, Stojadinovic A, et al. Early detection of colorectal cancer recurrence in patients undergoing surgery with curative intent: current status and challenges. J Cancer 2014;5:262–271. pmid:24790654
16. van Wyk HC, Roxburgh CS, Horgan PG, Foulis AF, McMillan DC. The detection and role of lymphatic and blood vessel invasion in predicting survival in patients with node negative operable primary colorectal cancer. Clin Rev Oncology/Hematol 2014;90:77–90.
17. Hyslop T, Waldman SA. Molecular staging of node negative patients with colorectal cancer. J Cancer 2013; 4:193–199. pmid:23459453
18. Williams GT, Quirke P, Shepherd NA. Dataset for colorectal cancer. 2nd edition. The Royal College of Pathologists, London, UK, 2007.
19. Talbot IC, Ritchie S, Leighton M, Hughes AO, Bussey HJ, Morson BC. Invasion of veins by carcinoma of rectum: method of detection, histological features and significance. Histopathology 1981;5:141–163. pmid:7216178
20. Abdulkader M, Abdulla K, Rakha E, Kaye P. Routine elastic staining assists detection of vascular invasion in colorectal cancer. Histopathology 2006;49:487–492. pmid:17064294
21. Woods YL, Mukhtar S, McClements P, Lang J, Steele RJ, Carey FA. A survey of reporting of colorectal cancer in Scotland: compliance with guidelines and effect of proforma reporting. J Clin Path 2014;67:499–505. pmid:24567415
22. Roxburgh CS, Foulis AK. The prognostic benefits of routine staining with elastica to increase detection of venous invasion in colorectal cancer specimens. J Clin Path 2011;64:1142.
23. Barresi V, Reggiani Bonetti L, Vitarelli E, Di Gregorio C, Ponz de Leon M, Barresi G. Immunohistochemical assessment of lymphovascular invasion in stage I colorectal carcinoma: prognostic relevance and correlation with nodal micrometastases. Am J Surg Pathol 2012;36:66–72. pmid:21989343
24. Kingston EF, Goulding H, Bateman AC. Vascular invasion is underrecognized in colorectal cancer using conventional hematoxylin and eosin staining. Dis Colon Rectum 2007;50:1867–1872. pmid:17665249
25. Messenger DE, Driman DK, McLeod RS, Riddell RH, Kirsch R. Current practice patterns among pathologists in the assessment of venous invasion in colorectal cancer. J Clin Path 2011; 64:983–989. pmid:21697290
26. Kirsch R, Messenger DE, Riddell RH, Pollett A, Cook M, Al-Haddad S et al. Venous invasion in colorectal cancer: impact of an elastin stain on detection and interobserver agreement among gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal pathologists. Am J Surg Pathol 2013; 37:200–210. pmid:23108018
27. Sternberg A, Amar M, Alfici R, Groisman G. Conclusions from a study of venous invasion in stage IV colorectal adenocarcinoma. J Clin Path 2002; 55:17–21. pmid:11825918
28. Roxburgh CS, McMillan DC, Anderson JH, McKee RF, Horgan PG, Foulis AK. Elastica staining for venous invasion results in superior prediction of cancer–specific survival in colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 2010;252:989–997. pmid:21107109
29. Meguerditchian A-N, Bairati I, Legace I, Harel F, Kibrite A. Prognostic significance of lymphovascular invasion in surgically cured rectal carcinoma. Am J Surg 2005; 189:707–713. pmid:15910724
30. Nagtegaal ID. Current concepts of colorectal cancer resection pathology. Histopathology 2015;66:102–111. pmid:25263073
31. Diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN 126), 2011. Available: http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/126/
32. Quasar Collaborative Group, Gray R, Barnwell J, McConkey C, Hills RK, Williams NS, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation in patients with colorectal cancer: a randomised study. Lancet 2007;370:2020–2029. pmid:18083404
33. Parnaby CN, Scott NW, MacKay C, Ramsay G, MacKay C, Samuel LM, et al. Prognostic value of lymph node ratio and extramural vascular invasion on overall survival for patients undergoing curative colon cancer resection. Br J Cancer 2015;113:212–219. pmid:26079302
34. O’Shea A, Aly O, Parnaby CN, Loudon MA, Samuel LM, Murray GI. Increased lymph node yield in colorectal cancer is not necessarily associated with a greater number of lymph node positive cancers. PLoS One 2014;9:e104991. pmid:25118594
35. Coghlin C, Murray GI. Biomarkers of colorectal cancer: recent advances and future challenges. Proteomics Clin Appl 2015;9:64–71. pmid:25311658
36. O’Dwyer D, Ralton LD, O’Shea A, Murray GI. The proteomics of colorectal cancer: Identification of a protein signature associated with prognosis. PLos One, 2011;6:e27718. pmid:22125622
37. Brown GT, Cash B, Alnabulsi A, Samuel LM, Murray GI. The expression and prognostic significance of bcl2 associated transcription factor (BCLAF1) in rectal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy. Histopathology;2015:
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2015 McClelland, Murray. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is a common malignancy and a leading cause of cancer related death. Cancer staging following resection is key to determining any adjuvant therapy in those patients with high risk disease. In colorectal cancer, tumour stage and lymph node stage are the main pathological factors which have been considered to influence outcome. Increasing emphasis is now being placed on other factors, especially the presence of extramural venous invasion (EMVI). It is important to understand the relationship of EMVI with other pathological factors and to confirm that in an individual centre that EMVI is being detected at an appropriate rate and is of prognostic significance. This comprehensive study assesses the reporting and prognostic significance of EMVI in a single centre, using prospectively collected data from histopathology reports of a cohort of 2405 patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer over a nine year period. Overall, EMVI was reported in 27.9% of colorectal cancer excision specimens. In tumours (n = 1928) that had not received neoadjuvant therapy, the presence of EMVI varied significantly depending on tumour site (χ2 = 12.03, p<0.005), tumour stage (χ2 = 268.188, p<0.001), lymph node stage (χ2 = 294.368, p<0.001) and Dukes’ stage (χ2 = 253.753, p<0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed EMVI as a significant independent prognostic indicator (p<0.001). In conclusion, the presence of EMVI as an independent prognostic indicator is shown and is related to other pathological and prognostic factors. This study emphasises the requirement for the accurate identification of EMVI in colorectal cancer excision specimens and also understanding the relationship of EMVI with other prognostic factors.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer